2018 Virgin Australia Supercars ChampionshipTouring Cars 

  • Thread starter Cap'n Jack
  • 2,549 comments
  • 93,690 views
R1600Turbo
Hopefully the racecar looks better than the monstrosity they unveiled recently.
Click to expand...
Just had another look at it. I think I'm just happy it's still being made. Also, it's coming here. the used car market, is looking better and better.
 
Red flag. Good thing Stanaway got a good lap.

Wow. Depasquale up top 7th.

Edit: Look like R.Kelly is Nissan's only hope. They must get their strategy correct.

Surprised by WAU and a few others.
 
Last edited:
What. A. Start.

Fabs is on the move. Simona up to 20th. bump drafting. Everything in 2 laps of racing.

Edit: Aww, c'mon, beiber. Too early for that.
 
Last edited:
Great drive from Rick to get 3rd, nice result for Nissan.

Happy that Pye managed to hold onto 10th.
 
Missed the race as I'm away for work and it was on at 12:45am but Facebook spoilers be spoilin'. Good job to Rick for the podium. Going to try and watch it tonight.
 
05XR8
Oh well, i'm sure we're all crying here.
https://www.speedcafe.com/2018/04/21/dutton-explains-whincup-post-race-penalty/

Good for Rick, as he gets 2nd Place!
Click to expand...

I mean I know plenty of us don't like the guy here, but that doesn't mean that said rule isn't stupid and its implementation here is questionable at best. If it happened to a driver that you actually liked or others I'd imagine there would be a more vocal comments about this. Shouldn't be the case, if a call made is stupid no matter who it is, it should be asked why it is such.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
I mean I know plenty of us don't like the guy here, but that doesn't mean that said rule isn't stupid and its implementation here is questionable at best. If it happened to a driver that you actually liked or others I'd imagine there would be a more vocal comments about this. Shouldn't be the case, if a call made is stupid no matter who it is, it should be asked why it is such.
Click to expand...
In this case the rule is there for the safety of everyone in pit lane, so I'm not sure why you would deem it as stupid, and much like DC's penalty earlier in qualifing, there's not really much to say about it. In both cases rules where broken, and they both paid a hefty price for things that made little to no difference to what happened on track, but rules are rules, it's as simple as that.
 
FPV MIC
In this case the rule is there for the safety of everyone in pit lane, so I'm not sure why you would deem it as stupid, and much like DC's penalty earlier in qualifing, there's not really much to say about it. In both cases rules where broken, and they both paid a hefty price for things that made little to no difference to what happened on track, but rules are rules, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

I know exactly why it was there, the break down of what happened is more why I find it stupid and harsh. To have a guy drop from second to fourteenth simply for misjudging a cone, not gaining speed and then realizing his mistake and trying to fix it all in a short span, since the merge cone and end of pit cone are only a handful of feet apart. You're analysis seems to ignore all that though as if he was driving from entrance to box to exit without it.

Then going forward from there you basically want to sum it up to "too bad for him, rules are rules, that's how it goes" when there has been plenty of times in this and previous iterations of this thread, rules have been questioned. And I'm pretty sure you were involved in debating them beyond "rules are rules".
 
R1600Turbo
Same could be said for the rule excluding Caruso from qualifying because he had a temporary mechanical issue and never actually stopped on track.
Click to expand...

I agree that was stupid as well. The only penalty I didn't find stupid was the DC one, but I did find it stupid that the driver suffers for something out of his control, as usual. Thus team itself should of been penalized more so than the actual driver.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
I know exactly why it was there, the break down of what happened is more why I find it stupid and harsh. To have a guy drop from second to fourteenth simply for misjudging a cone, not gaining speed and then realizing his mistake and trying to fix it all in a short span, since the merge cone and end of pit cone are only a handful of feet apart. You're analysis seems to ignore all that though as if he was driving from entrance to box to exit without it.

Then going forward from there you basically want to sum it up to "too bad for him, rules are rules, that's how it goes" when there has been plenty of times in this and previous iterations of this thread, rules have been questioned. And I'm pretty sure you were involved in debating them beyond "rules are rules".
Click to expand...
He did gain speed and nearly 1 second. Pit lane has to start and finish somewhere. Disengage the pit lane limiter in that designated area is a penalty, yeah that's pretty simple. The penalties I find perplexing are when Whincup doesn't get penalties for doing the exact same thing others were penalized for, the cone incident (or lack of) at PI last year being one of them. I also said he paid a hefty price. A bit too hefty, yeah maybe, but if they didn't distribute the same penalty for him that anyone else would recieve for the same thing I'd be here questioning that decision.
 
FPV MIC
He did gain speed and nearly 1 second. Pit lane has to start and finish somewhere. Disengage the pit lane limiter in that designated area is a penalty, yeah that's pretty simple. The penalties I find perplexing are when Whincup doesn't get penalties for doing the exact same thing others were penalized for, the cone incident (or lack of) at PI last year being one of them. I also said he paid a hefty price. A bit too hefty, yeah maybe, but if they didn't distribute the same penalty for him that anyone else would recieve for the same thing I'd be here questioning that decision.
Click to expand...

Based where? VASC said no speed was gained, and that's not the point of the rule, the rule penalizes based on being broken not if speed was gained or not. So again where is this supposed gain? The second was gained from a better pit stop than DJRTP, and then was replicated again with no limiter mistake. So not sure where you've gotten this info.

I agree with you that when JW does stuff another driver was penalized for and doesn't get punished is when people should be irritated. Point is VASC seem to implement their rules strangely at times, and in this case it feels it was more so done to say "we do punish JW, remember Phillip Island Rd 9?". I mean this is the first we've seen of this type of issue before, so unless 38 second time penalty is the norm, I'd have to see the official rulings for it. However, seeing as they're the governing body and he only did said infringement for an instant and then tried to correct it, I don't see why they couldn't reduce the time.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Based where? VASC said no speed was gained, and that's not the point of the rule, the rule penalizes based on being broken not if speed was gained or not. So again where is this supposed gain? The second was gained from a better pit stop than DJRTP, and then was replicated again with no limiter mistake. So not sure where you've gotten this info.

I agree with you that when JW does stuff another driver was penalized for and doesn't get punished is when people should be irritated. Point is VASC seem to implement their rules strangely at times, and in this case it feels it was more so done to say "we do punish JW, remember Phillip Island Rd 9?". I mean this is the first we've seen of this type of issue before, so unless 38 second time penalty is the norm, I'd have to see the official rulings for it. However, seeing as they're the governing body and he only did said infringement for an instant and then tried to correct it, I don't see why they couldn't reduce the time.
Click to expand...
VASC didn't confirm or deny whether speed was gained, but for me watching it (and knowing that if a driver deactivates the limiter he/she automatically accelerates) he seemed to pull ahead. Some of this was due to SM having to avoid JW, but not all IMO. I also stated that little to no advantage was gained, because in my view, JW was clearly in front of SM before the breach anyway. But none of this changes that the rule was broken and 888/JW have to suck it up, which to their credit, they have done.

I definitly agree with you that VASC seem to implement their rules strangely at times. Sometimes more often than not, and what I would like to know is if this is part of this years procedure for every race. Every car was checked this time. Was it at all the previous rounds? If the answer is no, then let the conspiracy theories begin.:scared:
 
FPV MIC
VASC didn't confirm or deny whether speed was gained, but for me watching it (and knowing that if a driver deactivates the limiter he/she automatically accelerates) he seemed to pull ahead. Some of this was due to SM having to avoid JW, but not all IMO. I also stated that little to no advantage was gained, because in my view, JW was clearly in front of SM before the breach anyway. But none of this changes that the rule was broken and 888/JW have to suck it up, which to their credit, they have done.

I definitly agree with you that VASC seem to implement their rules strangely at times. Sometimes more often than not, and what I would like to know is if this is part of this years procedure for every race. Every car was checked this time. Was it at all the previous rounds? If the answer is no, then let the conspiracy theories begin.:scared:
Click to expand...

I can't get behind the whole "I can see the speed change". Especially when Dutton says simple that JW got up to the 40 and then as passing the merge cone he turned it off, quickly realized his mistake and turned it back on. He said speed isn't a factor in the ruling, simply that breaking the rules is a factor. I don't like that a small region was violated, so small it could be considered insignificant. I'm fine with the calling them out on the break, but not the outcome, which means no discretion and rather simply same black and white rulings none the less.

I guess if they did use discretion though in that sense we'd have more to complain about, as to why they'd give 15 seconds to one driver and 30 to another for similar incidents. However, as said that's not very different from the current of giving a driver a penalty but not the other. I too also questioned that, which makes me cringe at the possibilities of past results being not what they should of been.
 

Latest Posts

Back