Super-duper cars SMP (spoliers)

[skaifeman]

I'm lost too based on Sonic's twisted question to me. Just listing some (unlikely) examples of why the 'no passing before the control line' rule cannot be absolute.

if ADP had gone off track then there would be no issue of Giz going past him.

but all that happened was that he broke traction and had to lift for, what was it? 1.4 secs? and if I recall they said he was still on 45% throttle so he was still going in the right direction.

just because the driver in front is not accelerating to your liking is not permission to pass them. drivers in state racing know that! apparently the SC fraternity is making its own rules again to suit themselves.

He never broke traction when he lifted, and the data can confirm (according to those in the tower).

I have no issue with your reasoning for SVG to stay penalised, but you're getting mixed up between when he actually lifted (just before the start/finish) and entering the straight.

If data shows that he accelerated at a slower rate than Giz expected (after the wheelspin lift at the start of the straight) it is irrelevant I think. The onboard that they showed seemed to show a slow increase in speed (compared to those in front of him and behind). Perhaps it really is just the wet track being the issue and ADP playing it safe (as he did again at T1 when Giz didn't).

Don't think it would have happened if it was a dry track.

It still remains though that drivers should be single file for restart. Didn't they bring that in?? Was it rescinded?? Always remember at Bathurst it is pretty much no weaving and single file from entry to the Chase. It should be the same at every track.... but that would make for boring tv with no scandal right?

That's leading onto the straight and exactly how SVG gained the overlap, as you say, that's a conversation in itself as to whether it should be single file to the control line.
Anton then lifted again - which is where all this kerfuffle has come about.

ADP, with 45% throttle percentage, may have stopped accelerating. He may have been decelerating.

Has SVG ever deliberately slowed to cause a competitor to receive a penalty at a restart?
Those that said SVG had been SVG'd must think so. Yet think ADP doing the same is OK?

I said it metaphorically.
SVG hasn't done this specific action, however he's always on edge around SC restarts. Sometimes even playing silly buggers banging it off doors ala McLaughlin here a few years back too.

SVG is cunning, it seems Anton is too. Racers.

[fordman]

Has anyone in officials land made a complaint about the whole thing? are we getting worked up about nothing?

Only talking point should the ability to rescind a black flag, what happens now, a] teams now have the ability to challenge immediately the call? b] black flags are not issued  during the race but post race after review of Tech?

Seems to me if a can or worms has been cracked open, has the lid came right off? or is it being jammed shut?

[kennymiesta]

I wasn't going to comment on this as sometimes I find it easier to stay out of controversial topics such as this, but feel as though I need to put my two cents in. I will start from the moment the safety car lights were turned off.

- You are allowed to overlap from the apex of the last corner. This is the reason you don't see it much as places such as Bathurst, as the run from the apex of the last corner to the control line is quite short, therefore Shane has done nothing wrong here.

- Anton has slowed the car by reducing the throttle as they are coming towards the control line. I want to make it clear, Anton has done absolutely nothing wrong by doing this. This is not a breach of regulation, therefore deserves no penalty. If it was done intentionally, I say good on him for being a bit cheeky.

- Because Anton has slowed the car, Shane has gone past before the control line. This is still not an offense as in Shane's mind, he would have seen this as the car having a problem, something he is legally allowed to do as per article below:

10.2.12.3 Overtaking of another Car is not permitted, unless a Car slows with an obvious
problem.

Some may argue "he was still at 45%". At 200km/h, 45% throttle won't keep the car accelerating. At best it will maintain speed.

- Due to Shane firing off the road at Turn 1 (this had nothing to do with not backing off at the control line, as Will Davsion didn't go off, nor did Anton, who actually re-accelerated after lifting off), there was no opportunity for Shane to re-address the situation, something that probably would have been required, or he may have done himself after realising there was no issue with Anton's car.

In summary of my above points, neither drive actually did anything wrong. I know it is controversial for the PLP to be overturned, but I believe they would have done the same with any other driver. Remember, they overturned the penalty for Nick Percat at Darwin and instead imposed a team penalty instead. The conspiracy that its only because it was Red Bull is laughable. At the end of the day, it was because it was Red Bull, only for the fact they are one of the smartest teams in pit lane and know how to argue a point and what point to argue. It was obviously enough for the stewards of the meeting to look into it and realise there was a cause for argument.

Now, because I am stubborn, you can try and counter some of my points above, but it won't change my mind as I know I am right 

[Ospif1]

I wasn't going to comment on this as sometimes I find it easier to stay out of controversial topics such as this, but feel as though I need to put my two cents in. I will start from the moment the safety car lights were turned off.

- You are allowed to overlap from the apex of the last corner. This is the reason you don't see it much as places such as Bathurst, as the run from the apex of the last corner to the control line is quite short, therefore Shane has done nothing wrong here.

- Anton has slowed the car by reducing the throttle as they are coming towards the control line. I want to make it clear, Anton has done absolutely nothing wrong by doing this. This is not a breach of regulation, therefore deserves no penalty. If it was done intentionally, I say good on him for being a bit cheeky.

- Because Anton has slowed the car, Shane has gone past before the control line. This is still not an offense as in Shane's mind, he would have seen this as the car having a problem, something he is legally allowed to do as per article below:

10.2.12.3 Overtaking of another Car is not permitted, unless a Car slows with an obvious
problem.

Some may argue "he was still at 45%". At 200km/h, 45% throttle won't keep the car accelerating. At best it will maintain speed.

- Due to Shane firing off the road at Turn 1 (this had nothing to do with not backing off at the control line, as Will Davsion didn't go off, nor did Anton, who actually re-accelerated after lifting off), there was no opportunity for Shane to re-address the situation, something that probably would have been required, or he may have done himself after realising there was no issue with Anton's car.

In summary of my above points, neither drive actually did anything wrong. I know it is controversial for the PLP to be overturned, but I believe they would have done the same with any other driver. Remember, they overturned the penalty for Nick Percat at Darwin and instead imposed a team penalty instead. The conspiracy that its only because it was Red Bull is laughable. At the end of the day, it was because it was Red Bull, only for the fact they are one of the smartest teams in pit lane and know how to argue a point and what point to argue. It was obviously enough for the stewards of the meeting to look into it and realise there was a cause for argument.

Now, because I am stubborn, you can try and counter some of my points above, but it won't change my mind as I know I am right 

Great summary and agree 100%. Good to see some common sense in a sea of nonsense.

[AlbertM]

Sensible posts like that kill threads. So in an effort to keep the argument going. What if Anton backed off because he was aquaplaning and not wheel spinning?

[the undertaker]

I'll keep it going, Albert.

What would the thread be like if we were talking about Scotty instead of Anton?

[REM]

I'll keep it going, Albert.

What would the thread be like if we were talking about Scotty instead of Anton?

Gidday ol mate!! Nice to see you...

Re your question- on here.....not much different, on social media...dead set flame war....

[Sonic]

- Anton has slowed the car by reducing the throttle. I want to make it clear, Anton has done absolutely nothing wrong by doing this.

- This is still not an offense as in Shane's mind

-  there was no opportunity for Shane to re-address the situation,

Now, because I am stubborn, you can try and counter some of my points above, but it won't change my mind as I know I am right 

will need to see the SC rules on the bits I left above...

Anton slowing - the rule as I understood it was that you MUST maintain a 5 car gap... so that would mean that Anton has done something wrong.

Whatever may be happening in Shane's mind is completely irrelevant.

completely irrelevant, the whole 'redress' thing is a farce and a negative on the sport

as to the reversal, that can be argued that either race control screwed it up royally at the start by issuing the penalty or they screwed up royally with the reversal.

and nothing wrong with being stubborn!

[Bloopy]

The safety car rules also say:

10.2.12 From the time that the green flags are displayed until the Car crosses the Control Line:
  10.2.12.1 The Driver is required to either accelerate or maintain the prescribed speed ± 5km/h;

By my reading that disallows any decelerating before the control line. The driver would need to have a legitimate excuse for reducing speed before the control line, such as the standing water hazard in Anton's case.

[LG]

With the +/- 5kmh that gives a total possible difference of 10kph.
What is a driver supposed to do if he's almost +5kmh going downhill to a start line?
Does he just keep going and cop a penalty or does he ease off on the accelerator?
If he eases off even down to +/- 0 is that counted as decelerating or just part of maintaining speed at the +/- 5kmh?

[djr18fan]

The safety car rules also say:

10.2.12 From the time that the green flags are displayed until the Car crosses the Control Line:
  10.2.12.1 The Driver is required to either accelerate or maintain the prescribed speed ± 5km/h;

By my reading that disallows any decelerating before the control line. The driver would need to have a legitimate excuse for reducing speed before the control line, such as the standing water hazard in Anton's case.

What's the prescribed speed?

[Sonic]

The safety car rules also say:

10.2.12 From the time that the green flags are displayed until the Car crosses the Control Line:
  10.2.12.1 The Driver is required to either accelerate or maintain the prescribed speed ± 5km/h;

By my reading that disallows any decelerating before the control line. The driver would need to have a legitimate excuse for reducing speed before the control line, such as the standing water hazard in Anton's case.

What's the prescribed speed?

Would need to confirm with the regs but my memory is telling me it is 80k until the leader decides to go.

[stevo qld]

The safety car rules also say:

10.2.12 From the time that the green flags are displayed until the Car crosses the Control Line:
  10.2.12.1 The Driver is required to either accelerate or maintain the prescribed speed ± 5km/h;

By my reading that disallows any decelerating before the control line. The driver would need to have a legitimate excuse for reducing speed before the control line, such as the standing water hazard in Anton's case.

What's the prescribed speed?

Would need to confirm with the regs but my memory is telling me it is 80k until the leader decides to go.

i have a feeling that there is also a stipulation that a driver maintain a maximum distance behind the car in front. As I recollect, drivers have been pinged for falling back. Not that I am suggesting that this rule had a bearing on this incident.

It appears, in the paid experts opinions, that both drivers ended up escaping a penalty, based on precedents, because the track was so wet and vision was limited.

[REM]

After watching the races last night, the ZB really looks to be the thing to have in the wet....we even saw this with Scotty at Bathurst last year....

[Kytabu]

After watching the races last night, the ZB really looks to be the thing to have in the wet....we even saw this with Scotty at Bathurst last year....

The DJR cars were cruising in second and third behind Whincup, who had the benefit of clear vision all race, before Will lost out on strategy and in the battle for third. Anton had half a second on the field in the first wet qualifying session.

Bathurst last year proves nothing. McLaughlin's car was evil in those mixed conditions, not only did he lose out to SVG but he was also passed by Waters and Coulthard. SVG is a genius in conditions like that and simply outdrove everyone else in those couple of laps. Remember that they did not switch to wet tyres but braved it out on slicks.

In Bathurst qualifying in 2019, when it was properly wet, McLaughlin put 1.5 seconds on the nearest ZB. At Tailem Bend this year, Heimgartner gapped the field by 10 seconds in the rain. Meanwhile, SVG gapped everyone at Sandown and Whincup did the same on the weekend. It all comes down to who nails the car setup and the driving on the day. Take the Kellys for example; their cars tended to be rockets in the rain, whether they were in the VE, the Nissan or now the Mustang.