Tuesday , November 12 2019
Home / newzealand / Complete decision: DJRTP Bathurst engine case

Complete decision: DJRTP Bathurst engine case



The complete flight attendant decision document explaining the violation of the rules of the DJR Team Penske engine in the Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000.

Reason, reason

Competitor: Racing Team (Aust) Pty Ltd

Driver: Car # 17 Scott McLaughlin / Alexandre Premat

Date Time: 12 October 2019 Between approx. 0800 and 1800hrs

Session: Qualifying and Top Ten Shootout for Race 25 "Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000"

Fact that: FFollowing the event, the 009 engine, used in car # 17 in practice sessions 1 to 7, qualifying for race 25 and the top 10 shooting (and then replaced before the warm-up of race 25), was examined by Supercars. Technical personnel and multi-cylinder valve lift have been found to exceed the maximum allowable valve lift prescribed by the ESD for carriage No. 17.

Rule: Rule C2.1.1.

Decision: Car 17, Scott McLaughlin / Alexandre Premat, is disqualified from Race 25 Qualifying and Top Ten Shooting; and

A $ 30,000 fine is imposed on Racing Team (Aust) Pty Ltd; and

Car 17, Scott McLaughlin / Alexandre Premat, is demoted to the rear of the Grid for Race 30 at the Virgin Australia 2019 Supercar Championship.

Reason, reason: Attached

The Competitor is reminded that Penalties that may be subject to an Appeal are set out in B7.7.2 and the rights and processes for an Appeal are set out in B5.

Facts

Driven by Scott McLaughlin, one of two Racing Team (Aust) Pty Ltd (DJRTP) entrants, the Ford Mustang Car # 17 (McLaughlin / Premat) set the fastest field times in both qualifying and first ten games of race 25 at the 2019 Virgin Australia Supercars Championship, the "Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000", held at Mt Panorama in Bathurst (event). Car # 17 started race 25 from pole position. He won the race.

Each engine used by a team in a car has a unique identifier. The engine used in Car # 17 from the start of the Event to the Top Ten Shootout has been included as "009" (the Q Engine).

Rule D18.1 of the 2019 Supercar Operations Manual (Rules) states that the engine installed in a car when presented for inspection at the Event shall not be altered without the prior approval of the Supercar Headmaster (HoM) and only then for a valid reason, verified by HoM.

After the Top Ten Shootout, DJRTP applied for and received HoM approval to change the Q Engine on car # 17 because the water pressure observed on the Q Engine was abnormally high according to the telemetry that is independently monitored by Supercars. As a result, Q Engine was not used in Race 25.

According to the typical procedure, both the Q Engine and the one used in Race 25 Car # 17 (R Engine) were seized by Supercars technical personnel after Race 25 for verification.

One of the checks performed by Supercars technical personnel on both the Q engine and the R engine was the valve lift, which has a maximum limit prescribed in section 2.21 of the Engine Component Specification (ESD) for the Ford Boss 302 engine. 0.710 ”as measured on the engine. Valve lift of Engine Q (but not Engine R) inlet valves has been measured by Supercars technical personnel to exceed the Maximum Valve Lift of 0.710 ”by 5 cylinders (highest measurement recorded 0.7135”).

The measurements were taken on several occasions and were witnessed by representatives of the DJRTP. These measurements were not completed until after the subsequent event, the "Vodafone Gold Coast 600", held October 23-27, 2019.

Load

The Deputy Race Director (DRD) accused the DJRTP of violating Rule C2.1.1 (Charging) and forwarding this Charge to the Administrators. Rule C2.1.1 states that “a car shall conform to the design, VSD, ESD and relevant rules”.

It is alleged that rule C2.1.1 was violated by the DJRTP in the Supercheap Bathurst 1000, where the maximum lift of the Q Engine multi-valve valve exceeded the prescribed limit of 0.710 ”in the relevant ESD.

The audience

At 8:00 am Saturday, November 9, 2019, the Commissioners initiated a Charge Hearing on the Penrite Oil Sandown 500. DRD, DJRTP Authorized Representative, Dr. Ryan Story, Penske Racing President and an Authorized Assistant Representative appointed from DJRTP, Tim Cindric, and DRD.

The authorized DJRTP representative told the organizers that DJRTP did not dispute that the maximum valve lift of the intake valves, measured on the engine by Supercars Technical for Q Engine, using the measurement procedure specified in section 4 of the relevant ESD, was exceeded. in several cylinders and that, as a consequence, the alleged violation of rule C2.1.1 was admitted by DJRTP.

It was also admitted that it was reasonable to deduce from the available evidence that Q Engine was not compliant during the Qualifying Round and the Top Ten of Race 25, but disputed the suggestion that it may not have been compatible since the start of the race. event.

In light of this admission, it was not necessary for the organizers to hear evidence from Supercars technical staff.

DJRTP Authorized Representatives told the organizers that they ideally wanted to lead the evidence from DJRTP's engine construction contractor, Mostec Race Engines director Steve Amos, but Mr. Amos was unable to attend the hearing due to ill health.

The DJRTP did not request that the Hearing be postponed to allow evidence to be obtained from Mr. Amos. Finally, in light of the comments we have received and the conclusions we have made, we do not consider that Mr Amos could have helped the flight attendants to solve any of the problems.

DRD recommended penalty

DRD has recommended to flight attendants that a penalty under the following terms be imposed for the admitted violation:

– Drivers of Car No. 17, McLaughlin / Premat, will be disqualified from the Qualifying and Top Ten Shooting for Race 25 (noting that, according to Rule B7.7.1.8 of the Rules, the flight attendants have only the being able to disqualify a Competitor or Rider from a practice or qualification, not a car, and DJRTP's disqualification as a competitor would result in the car 12, Coulthard / D & Alberto; also being disqualified when it is not alleged that there was any violation of that car);

– A $ 50,000 fine will be applied to the DJRTP;

– That # 17 McLaughlin / Premat car will be demoted to the rear of the race 30 starting grid. Authorized DJRTP representatives did not accept this recommended penalty and stated that it would be severe and excessive. Penalty Proposals DRD has stated that, in accordance with accepted principles, the consequence required for non-compliance with Car No. 17 with the Rules is that Car Driver # 17 is disqualified from the Qualifying and Top Ten Shooting for the Race. 25 regardless of the reasons or extent of non-compliance. We agree with this statement and it was not disputed by the DJRTP.

He also stated that if nonconformity had been identified prior to Race 25, then, as a consequence of the required disqualification of Drivers of Race 25 Qualifying Car 17, Commissioners would have relegated Car 17 to the rear. grid for Race 25.

Due to the fact that non-compliance was not identified until after race 25, the drivers of car # 17 avoided this relegation.

He said, however, that it is now impossible to quantify the advantage that the # 17 car received in race 25 by starting on pole rather than at the rear of the grid and therefore imposing a penalty on race outcome would be inappropriate.

That's why he submitted that lowering car # 17 to the rear of the grid in race 30 is an appropriate penalty.

He also claimed that a fine should be imposed. He referred to the flight attendant's penalty imposed on the same crew in 2018 when the use of a transmission with incorrectly falling qualifying drop rates at the Tailem Bend event was not identified until after that event. In this case, the Directors imposed a $ 30,000 fine, of which $ 15,000 was suspended.

In support of its allegations, the DRD offered:

– A copy of the ESD SC-2-221, being the Ford Boss 302 ESD;

– A copy of the engine log book for Q Engine, which recorded the replacement of the rocker arms on that engine immediately before the Supercheap Bathurst 1000. He also explained that there is already a tolerance or margin incorporated into the maximum valve lift in the ESD because the limit cam lift speed and the prescribed swing ratio produce a theoretical lift value of 0.700 ”. DJRTP Authorized Representatives claimed that a fine along with a grid penalty in race 30 would be severe, considering the following:

– The violation of ESD was not intentional;

– No performance advantage arising from the violation was established by the evidence and was unlikely in any case;

– Being relegated to the rear of Grid in race 30, though a stamina race, would be a more severe penalty than being relegated to the rear of the grid at the Bathurst event due to shorter race distance in race 30. Authorized representatives offered A volume of materials:

– A copy of the Engine Build Sheet for the Q Engine that recorded the intake valve lift as measured by the engine builder when the engine was updated on September 16, 2019 as 0.706 "(ie within the 0.710 limit ");

Q Engine telemetry data on October 12, 2019, which showed abnormally high water pressure after training 6 of race 25 until the end of the Top Ten Shootout;

– A Motec graph of Q Engine water pressure data over the same period;

– A document entitled "Summary of ambiguity around measurements";

– A graph entitled "Measurement trend with consecutive measurement attempts on cylinder 1";

– A summary of cylinder measurements;

– a statutory statement by Mr. Amos;

– An email from Supercars Technical recording valve lift measured on multiple cylinders;

– Photographs of an example of valve lift measurement using a Mitutoyo 543-492B digital instrument;

– A valve lift table measured on multiple cylinders in Q Engine on various dates;

– A detailed report by Dr. Frank Grigg OAM of Forensic Engineering Consulting Pty Ltd, dated November 8, 2019, which talked about the likely accuracy of the Mitutoyo 432-492B indicator.
In summary, the allegations of the DJRTP were as follows:

– Inlet and exhaust valve lift is regularly checked by Supercars technical personnel. In fact, the valve lift on DJRTP engines has been checked approximately 10 times this season, including Q Engine, with no problem observed. As checking the valve lift was an expected process, it can be inferred that the DJRTP would not deliberately use a motor with this lift exceeded;

– A check on the valve lift motor is commonly performed at Events and is a simple process, especially on cylinders 1 and 5, which are in front of the engine and are easily accessible. Of the inlet valve elevation exceedances, two of the cylinders were 1 and 5. Again, as it could be expected that the valve elevation in cylinders 1 and 5 would be verified, it can be inferred that the DJRTP was consciously unlikely to allow valve lift on cylinders to be exceeded;

Q Engine construction worksheet demonstrates that valve lift was measured as within specifications prior to the Bathurst Event;

– As the ESD prescribes a procedure for measuring valve lift, the problem is not a simple matter of valve lift measurement, but measurement using that specific procedure;

– There are flaws in the specified procedure because a foot or plate on the indicator shaft means that the indicator shaft will not be on the same axis as the valve stem;

– Before this problem was discovered, the DJRTP measured its own valve lift using an analog instrument that did not have the “foot” at the bottom of the indicator shaft. Supercars technical personnel also do not regularly use the Mitutoyo 432-492B digital indicator. Therefore, what was discovered is the result of a change in circumstances;

– The degree of exceedance of the maximum valve lift was nominal;

– The Q Engine was run on the supercar technical dynamometer after race 25 and after two power races did not exceed the mandatory maximum accumulated power or EPWA number.

Other power runs were not possible because Supercars technical personnel observed water vapor being emitted from the oil tank, which was consistent with the problems observed at the Bathurst Event that led to engine replacement prior to Race 25.

Thus, it was presented that there was a problem with the Q Engine and the possibility that the problem had some influence on valve lift could not be ruled out and, furthermore, there was no performance advantage demonstrated by exceeding the Maximum valve lift.

The organizers closed the hearing at 1000 hours on Saturday, November 9, 2019. Decision We do not need to resolve a series of allegations made by the DJRT.

As indicated above, we agree with the DRD that, regardless of the cause or extent of the violation, disqualification of drivers from Qualifying Car # 17 and Top Ten Shootout for Race 25. Whether the violation was deliberate or known may be relevant. only for the imposition of another penalty.

In this case, there is no evidence from which we can conclude that the violation was deliberate or known. No discovery is required regarding the prescribed procedure for measuring valve lift. What is clear is that this applies to all teams and is the standard by which each team should be evaluated.

The conclusion we draw from the evidence is that it is likely that the DJRTP engine manufacturer measured the valve lift on the Q Engine using a different procedure than the prescribed procedure and therefore underestimated the valve lift prior to delivery of the Q Engine to DJRTP.

There is also no evidence from which we can conclude that car # 17 benefited from a performance advantage due to the violation.

As we said, this may be irrelevant for the purposes of disqualifying the sessions in question.

However, in our view, the facts of this case are distinguishable from Tailem Bend's transaxle violation, in that it was obvious in the transaxle case that it had generated a distinct performance disadvantage.

In this case, the Directors imposed a $ 30,000 fine, but suspended $ 15,000 for that reason. In this case, we agree with DRD that a fine is appropriate and we see no reason to suspend any part of it.

Given that a $ 30,000 fine has been imposed under similar circumstances previously, we have decided to impose a fine of the same amount here rather than an increased $ 50,000 fine as recommended by the DRD.

Finally, we agree with the DRD's recommendation that car # 17 be lowered to the rear of race grid 30.

This is an aspect of a penalty that fits the penalty that would follow if the violation was identified before the start of the race 25.

We acknowledge that there is some force in the submission that a rear derailleur rearguard puts Car # 17 at one more disadvantage in race 30 than it might have been if it had started at the rear in race 25.

However, this is an unfortunate but not unfair consequence of the violation being detected before the start of Race 25.

The fact that the violation was not detected later is not attributable to the Supercars, but it is a consequence of the Team failing in its responsibility to ensure that their car was always in compliance.

In accordance with Article 12.2.3.4 of the FIA ​​International Sporting Code, we have the power to impose a penalty on a subsequent competition in the same championship or series and we do so.

Traffic ticket

We impose a penalty on the following terms:

1. Drivers of Car No. 17, McLaughlin / Premat, will be disqualified from Race 25 Qualifying and Top Ten Shooting;

2. A $ 30,000 fine on the DJRTP;

3. Car 17, McLaughlin / Premat, will be lowered to the rear of race 30 starting grid.

Because of disqualification, Qualifying Car # 17 times and Race 25 Top 10 Shootings are eliminated.

As noted above, Car # 17 won the Race 25 Polo Prize, and Car Driver # 17, who qualified the Race 25 Car, received cash prizes related to that Prize.

According to Rule D15, the cash prize is the sole responsibility of the Supercars and the Pole Award is not a prize prescribed by the Rules.

Article 213 of the CAMS National Competition Rules (which apply by default only in the Virgin Australia 2019 Supercar Championship and in case of inconsistency the Rules prevail) any unverified prize or prize must be returned to the Organizer.

We do not consider that we have the power to make this happen, but under the circumstances it would be appropriate for this to be done.


Source link