95 replies to this topic

[cameron]

IMO Wincups penalty was a bit harsh, but he still has to be liable to re-address safely. The swedish box re-entered  in a totally unsafe manner which was dangerous and he obviously had a clear view of both holdens before re-entering the track.

 

Tander is the big looser. Brain fade had set in on the other two who where concentrating on the redress incident and not anyone else

 

Penalty may at best be revised to 10sec

 

Cameron

[yel327]

Problem is, doesn't the rules state fail to redress means points loss? Which means there should be no time penalty and on appeal Whincup/Dumbrell win the race. Points penalty is fairer anyway, that way only Whincup suffers not Dumbrell? Change the situation slightly where the Whincup V McLaughlin incident was for 10th and 11th. Does a 15s penalty still apply or do they take points away?

[RallyRed]

http://www.speedcafe.com/

 

""Will Davison believes he is assured his Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 victory is safe despite Triple Eight’s ongoing appeal following a conversation with team boss Roland Dane.
With the date for the hearing in Melbourne yet to be set, Davison says Dane has been in phone contact following the race where the Red Bull sqaud’s power broker said, ‘changing the race result is the last thing he wants to do’.
The Tekno Autosports driver also hinted that Triple Eight remains set on minimising Whincup’s penalty after the six-time champion lost 156 championship points as a result of the penalty""

[RallyRed]

looks like the rule makers arent sure of the rules either...

 

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport – the national governing body of motor racing, which administers the Supercars sporting rules – said Triple Eight had 92 hours from the finish of the Bathurst 1000 to submit evidence to support the appeal.

But on closer inspection of the regulations, it was found that the time allowance was actually 96 hours after the race, making the nominal deadline 5.30pm AEDT on Thursday instead of 1.30pm.

Amid the procedural error, Triple Eight applied to the CAMS-run Supercars National Court of Appeal for an extra day to submit its case, which was granted.

According to Triple Eight Holden team owner Roland Dane, the delay was to allow the tribunal to respond to the team's request for additional details concerning the appeal process.

Under the racing rules, the appeal is due to be heard within nine days of the Bathurst 1000, which means the three-person CAMS-appointed tribunal should sit by next Tuesday.

But the hearing, scheduled to be convened at CAMS' headquarters in Caulfield, Melbourne, can be delayed by mutual agreement, just as the location can be changed by joint consent.

[yel327]

http://www.speedcafe.com/

 

""Will Davison believes he is assured his Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 victory is safe despite Triple Eight’s ongoing appeal following a conversation with team boss Roland Dane.
With the date for the hearing in Melbourne yet to be set, Davison says Dane has been in phone contact following the race where the Red Bull sqaud’s power broker said, ‘changing the race result is the last thing he wants to do’.
The Tekno Autosports driver also hinted that Triple Eight remains set on minimising Whincup’s penalty after the six-time champion lost 156 championship points as a result of the penalty""

 

This is the area where I think it is totally wrong. The decision about who won and who didn't cannot be allowed to be decided by the players any more than it can be by a ref's wish-washy misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the rules. The rules must be the rules and the change based upon an error made where there is an appeal process should be run independent of any player. Those who control/run the race now know there is an error and should fix it. It should not be up to the players/drivers themselves to decide who won or didn't based upon their mate's feelings or for the race controllers to get off scott free as a team decides not to protest. If it was a Ford or a HRT car that won there would be already be a full appeal lodged for the race win. Otherwise you are forever going to have history record major stuff-ups in the controller's lap counting, rule breaking creating disqualifications etc and handling processes. Sometimes they get resolved in the right way like 1967 and 1987. Sometimes those affected are told to shut-up, we aren't appealing as it affects our mates like 1969 and 1976. Sometimes those controlling the race do a dodgy and cover stuff up to hide their mistakes like 1968. None of that should ever have happened. Given the amount of footage today surely the organisers just have to go back and review the dozen or so infringement decisions made as a larger review group post race and decide if anyone was wronged or not and change the result, hell most of them could be reviewed during the race. Most team/driver protests could be dealt with there and then as well for stuff un-noticed by race control. That way we'd have a decision on the day, just like horse racing. This particular problem should have been dealt with before the race even finished, sure the mistake by race control shouldn't have happened but it could have easily been fixed before the race ended or at least within an hour after the finish. 
 

[Shiney005]

Whincup would have been at fault as he didn't carry out the re-address safely. I'm no fan of Tander but I think he was robbed. 

[Bigfella237]

Whincup's new nickname is Mr Magoo... bumbling along completely oblivious to the chaos he's caused behind...

 

[arrimar]

Sourced from Ninemsn news:
WILL Davison and Jonathan Webb can rest easy: They can now be confirmed as winners of the 2016 Bathurst 1000.

Red Bull’s appeal of the result has been confined to reducing the severity of the 15 second penalty applied to Jamie Whincup to the lesser penalty of 10 seconds

Edited by arrimar, 14 October 2016 - 03:36 PM.

[yel327]

As I said that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't a 888 car or customer who won. In the scheme of things a great result, but still stupid in my opinion, the appeal should be about the penalty applied and the result being up to whomever reviews it, not about appealing for a pre-determined outcome.

[RallyRed]

Probably the silliest use of $10,000 in recent memory. 

Proved nothing.

[Redzone]

Whincup came in too fast with the rears locked up and opposite lock on before he came halfway up the inside of Scott. Then Whincup slowed on the racing line which is illegal even if you're doing it to redress. THAT'S why he got the penalty.

[yel327]

I don't think the redress incident has anything to do with the penalty. They made it clear that the 15s "fine" was for the incident on McLaughlin and because he never got the opportunity to redress for the initial incident. I'm with you Ian, whatever happens no point worrying but I still don't agree with it.

[RallyRed]

and still it goes on....

 

Contrary to media reports, the result of the Bathurst 1000 is still subject to the Court's final determination. The Court has the power to impose its own penalty which may or may not include time penalties.

 

At 16:29 AEDT today the Supercars National Court of Appeal received a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Triple Eight Race Engineering.
The Appeal confirms the intention of the team to appeal the severity of the 15 second post-race time penalty handed down to Car #88 (Jamie Whincup/Paul Dumbrell) for Careless Driving after causing contact with Car #33 (Scott McLaughlin/David Wall) at Turn 21 on Lap 150 of the 2016 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000.
Under the Supercars Operations Manual - Judicial Rules, the Appeal must contain all matters which the appellant intends to raise before the Court.
The receipt of the Notice of Appeal follows the interim decision of the Court this morning rejecting an application made by Triple Eight to expand the grounds of their appeal.
The reasons for this morning’s interim finding by the Court have now been published and are available for download by clicking here.
Contrary to media reports, the result of the Bathurst 1000 is still subject to the Court's final determination. The Court has the power to impose its own penalty which may or may not include time penalties.
The hearing will take place at the County Court of Victoria in Melbourne at 7pm AEDT on Tuesday 18 October, 2016.
The session will be closed to media; however, video footage will be distributed at the conclusion of the hearing from CAMS.

Edited by RallyRed, 15 October 2016 - 05:30 PM.

[davea79]

looks pretty convincing steve from that angle

Already hit him in that photo & still on oppisite lock

http://www.gmh-toran...attach_id=67502

[S pack]

just had a re look at this and you can see wincup back the car in a the chase in the last part of the entry  and loose the back - tap the volvo in the rear quarter and that's what sent him off. He was always going to hit him like a dodgem car - he just bounced off and then was able to take the corner. he had no ability to take that corner under a controlled car without hitting the iced vovo.

 

the only people getting rich are the lawyers 

Yeah, I see that now Grant. Whincup loses the rear end under brakes but it doesn't look like the rears locked though.

[S pack]

There is no doubt that Wincup made contact.    That was why he attempted to redress.    But there is also no doubt that the Volvo made contact with the Tander car, which caused the stoppage. 

 

To me what Wincup did was called racing. In my opinion, he did not deliberately or maliciously take Mclaughlin of the track.  Whilst trying to make a pass (which is the essence of racing) he did make contact, which did take Mclaughlin off the track, and for that a redress was required. And again in my opinion, Wincup was doing this.   Then, both Tander and Mcglaughlin  were approaching the Wincup car at a much faster rate of speed than Wincup was traveling at.  Mclaughlin and Tander made contact while trying to pass Wincup, and both crashed out. 

 

How is the crash that ended Mclaughlin & Tanders race the fault of Wincup..  Surly anyone making a pass anywhere on the track, be it in a corner, or drafting a pass down the straight,  has to do it safely?? .     And in my opinion Mclaughlin & Tander failed to do this when they came together.  

 

I know a lot of people don't like Wincup.. and I don't like him that much either.  But common sense needs to be applied here, not a bias towards one driver or another.

 

Ian 

Looking again at the footage posted by Baronvonrort.

@ 6secs GT catches up to JW as JW is slowing to redress the incident with SM. 

@ 8secs SM re enters the race track and is still a nose ahead of JW. SM is clearly a nose ahead of JW and GT should be able to see SM.

@ 9secs GT starts his move on JW as SM continues to move toward the centre of the track and appears to be slowing to drop in behind GT rather than increasing his speed to pull in front of JW.

SM's front left makes contact with GT's right rear. GT was in a position to see SM coming and should have stayed behind JW.

IMO Tander is as much at fault for the contact with SM as SM is.

 

I'm thinking SM thought JW's passing maneuver was legal and that he should pull in behind Tander and Whincup.

 

A mate of mine is a Ford man and he can't stand Whincup but even he says that Whincup was robbed.

Edited by S pack, 16 October 2016 - 08:53 AM.