2016 Virgin Australia Supercars Championship - Results and TalkTouring Cars 

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cap'n Jack
  • 4,422 comments
  • 138,216 views
Woke up this morning and the race was uploaded to Superview, so I'm catching up now even though I pretty much know the finishing order thanks to social media. But this:

rain.jpg


:eek:

Edit: And then the stream ends before the podium stuff is sorted out. :indiff:
 
Last edited:
Sucks that the DJRTP electrics went out and couldn't get the fuel sorted. Just a crazy outcome for everyone.
 
DJRTP actually look pretty strong this year though, can't wait to see how they do in the next championship round.
 
I'm still confused by everything yesterday. :lol: But incredible result for Percat and the LDM crew. Couldn't be happier for them. 👍
 
Reasons 140 cap should have been ignored yesterday:

-Unsure start to the race
-Multiple periods of slow laps under the pace car that wouldn't allow for fuel to be met
-Suspended race that was restarted
-Power outage for a period
-Race made it barely above the halfway

Just those I can think of.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Reasons 140 cap should have been ignored yesterday:

-Unsure start to the race
-Multiple periods of slow laps under the pace car that wouldn't allow for fuel to be met
-Suspended race that was restarted
-Power outage for a period
-Race made it barely above the halfway

Just those I can think of.
Click to expand...
Needed to be decided on at the start of the race as to not disadvantage those who did follow the rules. They had time to decide that during the opening SC period.

If the race runs long enough to be classified then teams should have to follow the rules in place for that race/event.
 
GTracer38
Needed to be decided on at the start of the race as to not disadvantage those who did follow the rules. They had time to decide that during the opening SC period.

If the race runs long enough to be classified then teams should have to follow the rules in place for that race/event.
Click to expand...

How, when Control wasn't even communicating with the teams properly in the first place. you run 40 something of 70 something...clearly the rule is specified to that number to fulfill what deems fit over the entire race period. I guess teams should have come in and forced fuel loads and made the race a big crap shoot rather than one of actual speed and strategy?
 
I'd just like to point out that the teams that didn't get penalized for the fuel drop seemed to be able to make it work...
 
R1600Turbo
I'd just like to point out that the teams that didn't get penalized for the fuel drop seemed to be able to make it work...
Click to expand...

They made it work with the gamble that the race wouldn't make it all the way through, and most of those that did get extra fuel took extra stops because they kept finding themselves in the back. GT and Todd Kelly being two of those of note.

The guys actually up front most of the day or top ten, actually could keep the car on track when it wasn't the amazon river through turns 6-10 (JC being who I'm talking about that had misfortune). Also I'm sure you'll disagree for obvious reasons.
 
R1600Turbo
I'd just like to point out that the teams that didn't get penalized for the fuel drop seemed to be able to make it work...
Click to expand...
It wasn't an act of good strategy or whatever. It was mainly just that they have no other options so they just went for it.
 
That race was a complete disgrace, the race distance was almost halved, they spent half of that time under safety car and yet they still expected teams to drop 140l? Just embarrassing for the sport, there will no doubt be some rule changes after yesterday.
 
The only way to rectify the entire situation is to nullify the results of that race, and only pay prize money for the prior 2 races on the Saturday, that race was a shambles from the very start, it may well be Australia's greatest teams and drivers but the event staff and stewarding crew have been fairly incredible at ruining peoples days with either stupid rulings, not enforcing rulings, or making it up ad they go along,
 
Interesting... The fuel that has returned through the vent line counts as completed part of the fuel drop

...others later took full advantage of the fact that teams can ‘vent’ fuel through the cars in their pitstops as part of the minimum drop.

The practice sees the fuel flow out of the rig, into the car and back up the vent line, which subsequently gets drained by the team in the garage...
Click to expand...

The car doesn't actually have to have the room available in the tank. Did not know that...
 
I think there's a pretty simple change they should make to this fuel rule, you can agree or disagree on this. The rule should be that if the race is shortened from the originally quoted distance (250 km in this case) teams should be required to drop the same percentage of fuel as the race makes percentage of distance.

So 42 laps were completed IIRC of 78 which is pretty much 54% distance. The fuel drop should then also be 54% meaning 75.6 litres would have to be put in the car. 54% distance should mean 54% of the fuel to me.
 
I don't want to be that guy but it was better in the "good ol' days" where the only requirement was how many times you have to come into pits.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Reasons 140 cap should have been ignored yesterday:

-Unsure start to the race
-Multiple periods of slow laps under the pace car that wouldn't allow for fuel to be met
-Suspended race that was restarted
-Power outage for a period
-Race made it barely above the halfway

Just those I can think of.
Click to expand...
The underlying issue is that this was a case of force majeure. There was no plan in place for this set of circumstances because this set of circumstances had never been encountered before. In retrospect, it was obvious that they could have planned around it, but as the commentators frequently alluded to, nobody anticipated any rain yesterday morning, much less the deluge that inundated the circuit.

Admittedly, the cynic in me wonders if the furore over the start time was a strategic play; if they foresaw more rain - and the radar showed it - and anticipated lengthy safety cars, then it stands to reason that they would have known about the fuel drop issue, since they would have crunched the numbers. With that in mind, they could have concocted a strategy that deliberately ignored the fuel drop and then argued that the shortened race distance would have meant that they never would have burned off enough fuel. That might sound far-fetched, but it's the kind of loophole that's ripe for exploitation.
 
Will27
Interesting... The fuel that has returned through the vent line counts as completed part of the fuel drop



The car doesn't actually have to have the room available in the tank. Did not know that...
Click to expand...
Yeah that makes sense. Let's play with a flammable liquid we don't need instead of using it in the car.

It's about time they dropped the stupid, insane fuel drop requirement.
I can see two options:
A. The officials make sure every car is 100% full of fuel at the start of the race, or,
B. Let the team's use as much fuel as they need to finish the race and let THEM decide how they use it & when.
 
prisonermonkeys
The underlying issue is that this was a case of force majeure. There was no plan in place for this set of circumstances because this set of circumstances had never been encountered before. In retrospect, it was obvious that they could have planned around it, but as the commentators frequently alluded to, nobody anticipated any rain yesterday morning, much less the deluge that inundated the circuit.

Admittedly, the cynic in me wonders if the furore over the start time was a strategic play; if they foresaw more rain - and the radar showed it - and anticipated lengthy safety cars, then it stands to reason that they would have known about the fuel drop issue, since they would have crunched the numbers. With that in mind, they could have concocted a strategy that deliberately ignored the fuel drop and then argued that the shortened race distance would have meant that they never would have burned off enough fuel. That might sound far-fetched, but it's the kind of loophole that's ripe for exploitation.
Click to expand...

In this situation I agree, that's possible, but it works both ways because it's mother nature at play and a gamble for both ends. This race could have easily ended 5, 10, 20 laps sooner depending upon conditions and we'd still be in the same situation today. Further more, you can see it both ways simply because teams could have crunched (as you put it) and race control could have put in precautions if and as needed.
 
With the exception of the Altima(unless it has been resolved), I believe all the teams have good fuel economy. It was a big problem for the E63. Hence, the umpteen stops at for Bathurst. I though United E85 was supposed to aid in fuel savings. This fuel thing needs to go.
 
05XR8
With the exception of the Altima(unless it has been resolved), I believe all the teams have good fuel economy. It was a big problem for the E63. Hence, the umpteen stops at for Bathurst. I though United E85 was supposed to aid in fuel savings. This fuel thing needs to go.
Click to expand...

I thought it was the Nissan that had the fuel economy issues, hence the "jungle juice" saga
 
The Nissan and E63 both ran that test fuel at Winton. The E63 was worse on fuel economy. Like I posted in regards to Nissan, "(unless it has been resolved)".
 
They haven't complained about it so I assume they fixed the issue. I wonder if the new cylinder heads helped.

@GTracer38 you still up for grabbing me a poster at the AGP races?
 
prisonermonkeys
nobody anticipated any rain yesterday morning, much less the deluge that inundated the circuit.
Click to expand...
I live in Adelaide and the chance of rain was most definitely forecast and the commentators spoke of this many times during the days telecast. Also this is not the first time it has bucketed down during the Sunday race. It was just another complete stuff up by those in charge.
 
Back