The Hyundai and their rear-wing saga continuos :cool:
Printable View
The Hyundai and their rear-wing saga continuos :cool:
If A driver rents a car from a team to participate in an international series, and The car does not pass tech check after the race.
Is it then correct to disqualify the crew is punished for a tech issue that the team is 100% responsible for?
If someone is to be punished it should be the car owner. Driver and codriver has no possibility to check everything on a car, before they start.
Or am I missing something?
Following your logic you can rent a car from a team, agree they're going to cheat in your favor (let's say for example they fiddle with the pop-off valve or restrictor) and you'll pay the fines they get as a team. And you cannot be disqualified as you rented the car. That would be something...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
No, because if the car owner isn't a competitor, he can not be penalised in the event. You can't be penalised if you don't compete. Simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Plus... It would be very unfair to the rest of the competitors if a clearly illegal car would be kept in the results without a penalty.
That's the risk of renting a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
It's actually very simple. If a company renting cars causes troubles to its customers, it won't profit. That is a self-regulation of a free market.
They just decided to keep Mikkelsens penalty.
Decision n25. It basically says that Toksport/Mikkelsen have to prove that something was done wrong.
As a witness that they were shown a starttime correctly they use Paul Nagle (totally no conflict of interest, also he was starting 10 cars later, was he at the startline then, why? ) and as a proof they list that Floene "raised his arm" on onboard. So it is also possible that when they showed him the time he didn't notice it and was lifting something in the car.
They also say that when Floene asked again with 15s to go they gave him new time one min later...why not just say "go now in 5-10"? When then they said new time one min later why penalty?
Well I wasn't there so it's entirely possible that Floene was shown the time, acknowledged it and forgot it. But it highlights a clear issue with the covid-way of doing things. It becomes a statement against statement. In that case I find it a bit problematic that they place penalties for essentially misunderstandings.
At the same time they just refused appeal of another crew (n49 Franceschi) who say they showed a marshall 7 fingers to say they are checking in at 47 (when it was 46:50) and he marked it as early check in cause he saw only timecard behind window. Reasoning was again that it was statement vs statement and then they trust the marshall..."cause he has many years of experience".
The stewards are very busy!
Franceschi appealed his 1'10 penalty, but it got rejected.
But now Martin Sesks is DQ'ed because of a not homologated intercooler on his car.
So Franceschi wins anyway! First win for the Clio Rally 4 in ERC!
The document about Mikkelsen was removed? I cannot see Decision no 25.
So far it's only in the Sportity app. The website version of the noticeboard is not updated very often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom K
Well despite penalty Mikkelsen got better road position on day2 and he was fastest driver on leg2 (collecting bonus points?). But he will be frustrated, no doubt.
Organizers should do everything to minimize these kind of misunderstandings in future and also they should sort out that qualification stage nonsense.
FIA should review the COVID timecard system.
With the "normal" writing system there was written evidence and therefore strict timepenalties.
As shown by both penalties here when there is a misunderstanding it's word against word with no evidence on either side. Either the penalties can't be strict or the system needs to be changed so that there is hard evidence and clear signals that can't be misunderstood