Pwrc 2009

[Halvis]

Has anyone involved in the Brynildsen case taken the responsibility of what did happen already?

Is there always up to the stewards of every rally to decide the penalty? As said before in this thread, the difference in penalties for Loeb and Brynildsen is just ... I haven't words to describe it.

A common commitee that follows every rally and impose penalties with the same rules must be the way to go - this is simply ridiculous!

[Tomi]

Is there always up to the stewards of every rally to decide the penalty? As said before in this thread, the difference in penalties for Loeb and Brynildsen is just ... I haven't words to describe it.

A common commitee that follows every rally and impose penalties with the same rules must be the way to go - this is simply ridiculous!

I would go for a simple way, exclusion every time when someone uses illegal parts, thats the only way to avoid the politics in the penalty desitions.

[sollitt]

Regardless of whose error this was, it is the responsibility of the entrant to ensure that their car complies with the regulations. That's it. End of story.

You could see in the steward's report that they too had sympathy but their decision was the only one they could have made and was, in fact the correct one.

This car, which was non compliant, was competing against cars that presumably were compliant and that is untenable. Exclusion can be the only outcome.

It has been stated that it is not possible to check all components on a competing car. Well, I'm sorry, this is the big game and, in respect of the event, it is solely the entrant's responsibility to ensure compliance.

If the car was leased or purchased with the clear intent of entering this event there may be some legal redress against it's suppliers under the relevant commercial laws but that is a matter between entrant and supplier, not the event or the sport's adminstrators.

Comparisons with the Loeb/Aussie happening, whether right or wrong, do not alter the correctness of this decision.

[Mirek]

You could see in the steward's report that they too had sympathy but their decision was the only one they could have made and was, in fact the correct one.

I agree with You however we were proven several times things doesn't happen always this way. And that's unacceptable. Just exclude strictly everyone or noone. But when one is disqualiffied and other not while both use cars which don't comply with homologation, it's just a terrible joke.

Let's follow 2009 PWRC...

Tango team, Argentina - fibreglass mudguards instead of alumium (fibreglass ones heavier than homologated) - exclusion (by the way this terrible thing is allowed by new rulles in next season)

Prokop, Argentina - rear brake discs of outdated homologation (2006 which is not valid in 2009, were thinner than new ones) - exclusion

Brynildsen, Walles - rear brake calipers with smaller pistons - exclusion

Al-Attyiah, Acropolis - lightened crankshaft - time penalty - how the hell is that possible? The car didn't comply with homologation as the others didn't and moreover this was clearly performance enhancing infrigement. What's the difference? Is it that there is Prodrive involved while the others are privateers?

It realy looks to me like rulles are strict only until they cross the way of some big factory team. Than they have to be bent not to stay in the way...

[sollitt]

I absolutely agree that there must be consistency.

If I read your list of incidents correctly, the sole inconsistent matter is that of the lightened crankshaft at Acropolis.

Yet in this instance the Stewards did exclude the competitor and the FIA supported that decision strongly at the ICA appeal hearing.

It is those presiding Judges, and not the Stewards nor the FIA who have lessened the penalty in what I would consider a quite extraordinary decision.

[Mirek]

Your right that it wasn't steward's decision but isn't ICA a part of FIA structure? I can hardly believe it could work absolutely independent.

[Wasted Talent]

Whole thing just goes to show how stupid and petty current homologation rules are....

Fine, have engine at 16v 2000cc for S2000, rev limit, standard transmission (sealed?) form 2-3 firms, have same size maximum wheels/tyres allowed, minimum weight, basic bodyshell of roadcar, standard type of suspension.......makes it much simpler and no problems with wrong parts

WT

[bowler]

]I agree with You however we were proven several times things doesn't happen always this way. And that's unacceptable. Just exclude strictly everyone or noone. But when one is disqualiffied and other not while both use cars which don't comply with homologation, it's just a terrible joke.

Let's follow 2009 PWRC...

Tango team, Argentina - fibreglass mudguards instead of alumium (fibreglass ones heavier than homologated) - exclusion (by the way this terrible thing is allowed by new rulles in next season)

Prokop, Argentina - rear brake discs of outdated homologation (2006 which is not valid in 2009, were thinner than new ones) - exclusion

Brynildsen, Walles - rear brake calipers with smaller pistons - exclusion

Al-Attyiah, Acropolis - lightened crankshaft - time penalty - how the hell is that possible? The car didn't comply with homologation as the others didn't and moreover this was clearly performance enhancing infrigement. What's the difference? Is it that there is Prodrive involved while the others are privateers?

It realy looks to me like rulles are strict only until they cross the way of some big factory team. Than they have to be bent not to stay in the way...

The last decision was a Court of Appeal decision. That avenue is still open to Brynildsen if they choose.

The other factor which needs to be accounted for is that the Stewards Panel have access to information that we do not, and they base their decision on the completeness of that information. No case is ever the same. Anyone who has been part of those hearings knows that every competitor comes to the table protesting their innocence, and it is up to the stewards to determine whether their innocence is genuine or "misguided". It is impossible to say that because a decision was made in one hearing then the same decision must be applied to every other. That makes a mockery of any semblance of a fair hearing, but I suspect that some would be prepared to waive a fair hearing just so they could claim consistency.

The Stewards are all Motorsport people, competitors mostly, who have a lot of experience. To lump all of them together and say that they have to make the same decision in every case irrespective of circumstances shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the process works.

Equally the appointment of the same people for every event fails to allow for differences in events and countries.

I do recall when the FIA had appointed a permanent steward that people were loud in their criticism of the decisions that came from that system.

All that I can assume is that you will criticise the decision in any event which ever way it goes.

[sollitt]

]Your right that it wasn't steward's decision but isn't ICA a part of FIA structure? I can hardly believe it could work absolutely independent.

It may be a part of the structure and possibly even administered by the FIA but it must, and surely does, work independently.