Touring Cars 2017 Virgin Australia Supercars Championship - Results and Talk

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Spacegoat, Dec 7, 2016.

  1. R1600Turbo

    R1600Turbo Premium

    Messages:
    49,967
    Location:
    United States
    FPV MIC likes this.
  2. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    Hell yeah. *rubs hands*
     
  3. FPV MIC

    FPV MIC

    Messages:
    1,868
  4. R1600Turbo

    R1600Turbo Premium

    Messages:
    49,967
    Location:
    United States
    Obviously results can't be changed but having VASC realize that they f'd up is a good start.
     
    05XR8 and FPV MIC like this.
  5. Pete05

    Pete05 Premium

    Messages:
    6,292
    Location:
    Australia
    Apparently there isn't a radar gun involved at all.

    There are equally spaced timing loops that take a reading from the transponder inside the cars.
    This transponder is placed in the same position for every car.

    It all boils down to a time & distance thing.

    You cover too much ground in a given time, you're speeding.

    DJRTP can talk to the Officials until they're blue in the face & people can try and blow up the internet going over it again, again & again - it ain't gunna change anything that's already happened.

    All we can hope for is, lessons learned & a better way of dealing with this sort of thing in the future.
     
    Litening1 and Spacegoat like this.
  6. FPV MIC

    FPV MIC

    Messages:
    1,868
    Well I learnt something today. :cheers:

    I know there's no way to change what happened, the fact is, it shouldn't of happened the way it did in the first place. Transparency is needed or there will always be doubts. It's still very strange that no speed was given by Cams for all three cars that were pinned, even in the race report. :odd:
     
  7. R1600Turbo

    R1600Turbo Premium

    Messages:
    49,967
    Location:
    United States
    Did you read the article I posted? Try reading it again. They KNOW nothing will change with the results. That's not the point of them bringing it to VASC's attention.
     
  8. LMSCorvetteGT2

    LMSCorvetteGT2

    Messages:
    22,446
    Location:
    United States
    The problem is, if VASC were wrong no matter if change were to happen or not, it will be the championship that for a moment put the series in disrepute. More than the live unfolding of events and day after.
     
  9. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    Wonder if that penalty was to be for 97, rather than 17.
     
  10. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    Well, Scott had 2 other chances which he screwed up on.

    Also, we don't know how the race could've panned out with Scott didn't get the penalty, something else could've happened and screwed him over just as much as nothing to happen at all.

    The stars just alligned for Whincup this race, but who is to say it wouldn't if the first penalty didn't happen, it's something we don't know because it happened relatively early.
     
  11. FPV MIC

    FPV MIC

    Messages:
    1,868
    Two other chances that he shouldn't have had to deal with. As to how the race panned out, the same could have happened to Whincup, if the pressure wasn't removed.

    The trouble is the stars just align far to often for Whincup over the course of a season, for the same circumstances that others would and have gotten a penalty.
     
  12. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    What you expect? Drivers to move over just because 1 person is in the chase for the championship? Garry Rogers said it best, that it is still a race and should be treated as such no matter what the circumstances. Simona and Lowndes were doing just that racing, if everyone just moved over than we might as well call it glorified time trials. Even still, with that logic (assuming this is what you meant, could be wrong), Mclaughlin should've moved out of the way for Lowndes since he was going faster.

    The first star was the only one that can be debatable to be in favour of Whincup, the other two had 0 control from Whincup and something that no driver (in case spinning out another driver and leading someone into a wall) should get away with. Regardless if it was intentional. Sure, you can argue 888 gets away with some of these but the better solution is to hand them the same penalties instead allowing other teams to pull the same antics.
     
  13. FPV MIC

    FPV MIC

    Messages:
    1,868
    Not what I meant. I mean with no dicey penalty in the first place, he never would have spun Simona and therefore never had the incident with Craig.
    And this is what I mean, give 888 the penalties they deserve all year, then Whincup wouldn't have even been in the hunt in the last round.
     
  14. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    This was for the championship. not 6th place or bottom 10 in the championship. After all was done up to 2 laps to go, Scott gained the 11th place needed to win. Just can't give that spot up after fighting all season. Lowndes saw the opportunity. That's fine. As for driver's moving over, Pye and Waters did. Waters even slowed up and avoided overtaking Scott. Waters was fighting 4 other drivers for bottom of the top 10. He knew where the battle was.

    No way would I expect Lowndes to feather the throttle those last laps. We all watched the same race. The problem is that first call. However things played out after, it happened. But the first penalty was the killer.
     
  15. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    Ok that makes sense.

    but he did get that penalty, there is nothing we can do but hope it doesn't happen again, I think he was extremely lucky to even be able to get the chance to redeem himself 3 times (including the bump after the safety car caution). We have to accept the results that Mclaughlin is this years runner up and Whincup is now a 7 time Champion, nothing will ever rewrite this unless in extreme cases.

    However if they got one at the very beginning, it would then lead to a much more different series with different strategies. This is assuming everything else would've panned out the same.

    Have you ever heard of the Butterfly effect? It might've even be better for Mclaughlin, we just can't know.
     
  16. R1600Turbo

    R1600Turbo Premium

    Messages:
    49,967
    Location:
    United States
  17. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah, what happened to Monday?
     
  18. LMSCorvetteGT2

    LMSCorvetteGT2

    Messages:
    22,446
    Location:
    United States
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  19. Tak[TEC]

    Tak[TEC]

    Messages:
    396
    Location:
    Australia
    This further cements me just not watching next year, if they can't even entertain the idea that they ****ed up and give basically the same statement again. It just shows how little they really care about growing and improving the sport by looking at their own ****** decisions.

    Looks like i'm just sticking to Super GT next year instead.
     
  20. Pete05

    Pete05 Premium

    Messages:
    6,292
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm sure on page 30,482 of the fine print it says, something along the lines of, "The Stewards decision is final & no correspondence will be entered into."
     
  21. CLowndes888

    CLowndes888

    Messages:
    7,996
    Location:
    Australia
  22. LMSCorvetteGT2

    LMSCorvetteGT2

    Messages:
    22,446
    Location:
    United States
    I find it more strange that VASC articles after this released one all had comments turned off, as if they already foresaw that tsunami wave of hate and just said "yeah don't need this for the holiday season"
     
    Pete05 and RESHIRAM5 like this.
  23. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    Yep. I think speedcafe.com has about 300 comments.

    Baird said he wanted them to just play on this year. To add, he gave Giz a 15 second penalty for punting Reynolds into the wall. Shame he didn't give Scott the same 15 seconds for the same thing, supposedly.
     
  24. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    I think the difference was (and the logic they applied), David Reynolds didn't DNF from the incident, he was still racing until the end (and in fact came 5th). Mclaughlins incident caused Craig Lowndes to retire.

    I guess they look at the consequences of the action before applying. This is why Whincup only got a Bad Sportsmanship Flag when he did something similar in NZ, it didn't exactly kill Mclaughlins racing in the end.
     
  25. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    He didn't end Simona's race either. Scott not giving racing room, was the problem. I feel, with Baird's reasoning(“When you run someone off or turn someone around or cause an accident, with unnecessary contact, it’s got to be penalised.”), that penalty didn't fit the crime, even if Lowndes did or didn't DNF.
    Remember Bathurst 2016? Whincup outbraked himself and bumped Scott in the grass, tried to redress and caused two cars to DNF. He only got a 15 second penalty at the biggest race of the year. Insert Baird's reasoning in that scenario. Scott's penalty was more severe at the biggest race of the year.
     
    LMSCorvetteGT2 likes this.
  26. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah and they gave Mclaughlin a similar penalty to the one as SVG, as it didn't kill the race for Simona or Reynolds but they did lose quite a bit of action that shouldn't have gone unpunished. When Whincup pulled what he did on Mclaughlin at NZ, all that happened of relevance was that Whincup overtook Mclaughlin. If Simona only lost that one position to Mclaughlin, then this conspiracy would hold some water but Simona dropped quite a bit from this.

    To be honest, if I was officiating, if someone caused another driver to be DNF, I'd give them a 30 second penalty per driver. It's something that you shouldn't be able to get away with and be successful off.

    Yeah, last year. Problem here was that there were multiple pathways that could've happened to prevent it from happening. While I think Whincup was to blame for most of it (and I would apply my 30 second penalty thing here, so 1 minute), there was camps that did blame the action on Mclaughlin for not slowing down. Also like it appears Craig Baird doesn't care whether the race is big or not, from his reasoning on penalties and wants to treat all races as the same regardless of circumstances.
     
  27. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    By that reasoning, may as well make it an eye for an eye. A driver DNFs another, just park the car at fault. That's fair.

    Thing is, Red Bull got to be heard.
    Why did the rules change, in this instant, regarding appeals?

    His two penalties weren't consistent. Scott caused two incidents by misjudging. One by being out of control(not backing off), the other by not leaving room( impaired vision). In the end, two misjudges that ruined two driver's races. However, the second(as pointed out by Scott and Lowndes) was not deliberate, but Baird wasn't open to wait for that discussion. The contact appeared severe with the jutting out of the wall. The hit with Simona, was actually the worse of the two car on car contacts. Inconsistent penalties. It was a collision penalty, same as Simonas, to cop 15 seconds, not 25. They just decided to make it a PLP, which it should have been a 15 second penalty. We'll never know, but
    Lowndes may have lost momentum by brushing the wall, lived to race on and Scott be ahead by Turn 2. Because a problem gets magnified, doesn't mean a greater penalty should be enforced.

    If nothing comes of this pit lane penalty review on Monday, then I'll call it dead.



    Edit: Just seems real fishy that this penalty gets handed out instead of one that canbe appealed:

    7.6.1.6 PLP, during or after the Event, which is not subject to protest or appeal and may not be served while Safety Car boards are displayed;
    https://d3spxwpngnho1k.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017-Div-B-Final.pdf
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
  28. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    Again, it doesn't it doesn't matter if it was deliberate or not. The incident caused a DNF, and it could've been avoided. Mclaughlin made a mistake and got desperate which in turn wasn't paying attention to his surroundings (which he even said left hand mirror was busted and misjudged the distance between them and wall that stook out).

    Also again, Simona's didn't cause a DNF, Lowdnes's did. Supercar officials clearly care about the consequences of said incident more than the cause, take as you will but it isn't hypocritical behaviour. Also didn't you just say it would fair to park the car if a DNF was caused by it? How is getting away with it scott-free (no pun intended) fair? Because wasn't intentional? But it still could've avoided. The only exception I've seen to these kind of contacts from Supercars are contacts that couldn't be avoided. This incident could've been avoided. Give Lowndes the overlap overtake (since it is too late to defend your position fairly when the overlap happens) and then get back at him later, Mclaughlin had pace, only reason Lowdnes caught up in the first place really was because traffic as Lowdnes eventually started losing his quick pace beforehand.
     
  29. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    28,802
    Location:
    Australia
    A bit of sarcasm with my first sentence above.

    Lowndes only caught Scott because of the Turn 1 slip up. The contact was avoidable. Lowndes had the better sight, but he wouldn't know Scott lost a mirror. They're racing.
    Lowndes could have backed off. Overlap didn't mean "ahead". He was still behind to the side. Not a nose ahead.
    At Pukekohe, Scott backed off as much as he could. Whincup did not. Same race, Coulthard thought he was ahead of Reynolds and it could have been avoided if Reynolds backed off, but they were racing. This stuff happens.
     
  30. RESHIRAM5

    RESHIRAM5

    Messages:
    9,972
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm pretty sure you're not meant to defend your position by colliding with someone going in for the overtake as that can be dangerous and it led to a situation like we have now. We could argue all day about who should've backed off but like you said, they were racing.