Bathurst 2016

[Champin]

Nah man. That was years ago. He's changed and is a better person now. He told me so.

[kylarama]

I hope Roland Dane is prepared for a potentially ugly fallout from this appeal. 

The current winning team has massively close ties with 888 racing.  Cars, setup data, technical staff, garages and pit booms.
The winning codriver owns the team too. 

The 3rd place car of Percat is built by 888 too.   888 also supply parts, plus some technical support.

Based on Sundays results Van Giz leads the championship by 139 points over Whincup.

If the appeal is successful. Whincup leads the championship by 30 odd points over Van Giz.
What if Whincup wins the championship by less than 139 points.
Can't imagine Van Giz being overly rapt with his boss...
The boss also potentially loses 2 customers (contract issues too) and has to endure a very frosty 19 & 888 garage on race weekends for the rest of the year.
Not to mention fan backlash.  888 and Whincup will wear the black hat for sure after this.

While a drive thru penalty might have been to harsh for Whincup's dive.  At least the post race celebrations of the biggest race of the year wouldn't be tarnished.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

[Rumpig]

I hope Roland Dane is prepared for a potentially ugly fallout from this appeal. 

The current winning team has massively close ties with 888 racing.  Cars, setup data, technical staff, garages and pit booms.
The winning codriver owns the team too. 

The 3rd place car of Percat is built by 888 too.   888 also supply parts, plus some technical support.

Based on Sundays results Van Giz leads the championship by 139 points over Whincup.

If the appeal is successful. Whincup leads the championship by 30 odd points over Van Giz.
What if Whincup wins the championship by less than 139 points.
Can't imagine Van Giz being overly rapt with his boss...
The boss also potentially loses 2 customers (contract issues too) and has to endure a very frosty 19 & 888 garage on race weekends for the rest of the year.
Not to mention fan backlash.  888 and Whincup will wear the black hat for sure after this.

While a drive thru penalty might have been to harsh for Whincup's dive.  At least the post race celebrations of the biggest race of the year wouldn't be tarnished.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Can't see it being that big of an issue....I reckon if any other team in the race had the same thing happen to them, they'd appeal the result also. Like every other major sport these days, it's a big money business.

[kylarama]

Can't see it being that big of an issue....I reckon if any other team in the race had the same thing happen to them, they'd appeal the result also. Like every other major sport these days, it's a big money business.

Difference with big business and things like motorsport is emotion.  Rolands decision to appeal would have a fair degree of emotion attached to it.

 Watching Jono Webb in the pits in the closing laps. I don't think he'll treat it like a business decision if he gets relegated to 2nd.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

[Rumpig]

Difference with big business and things like motorsport is emotion.  Rolands decision to appeal would have a fair degree of emotion attached to it.

 Watching Jono Webb in the pits in the closing laps. I don't think he'll treat it like a business decision if he gets relegated to 2nd.

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

obviously they'll be peeved if it happens, but once the media dies down so would everyone else over time. Some might hold a grudge, but at the end of the day there'll be the next business decisions to make and the next race to win, life will go on.

[macca]

I dont think Roland would give a flying rats about any of that. I dont think Tekno were too happy when he took their driver last year. I think he just leaves those details for other members of his staff to work out

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Joff]

I'm pretty sure the penalty he got was for punting the 33 car off the track.
His attempt to redress wasn't successful, so he got a penalty for the original infringement.
He wasn't robbed. He clearly caused the whole thing and should take his medicine.

Of course he was robbed Merts. The rules are clear. Penalty for what he did is redress, not 15 seconds. Redress returns the status quo between the vehicles involved without general penalty. Thats how it is. The fact that he was unable to serve his penalty through no fault of his own does not mean the local penalty needs to be extended to a general one.

If Mclaughlin was unable to return to the track then it would necessarily need to be extended but that was not the case. Mclaughlin did return to the track unharmed from the incident and in control. Irrespective of the reason he left the track, it is his responsibility to rejoin safely. He didnt. Why should Wincup get penalised out of the race effectively for something Mclaughlin did?

[Streetkid]

It looked to me that Wincup was well aware that McLaughlin was on his way back onto the track cause he was already redressing the incident, Tander was the knob who was oblivious to the situation.

[gronk]

It looked to me that Wincup was well aware that McLaughlin was on his way back onto the track cause he was already redressing the incident, Tander was the knob who was oblivious to the situation.

You need to look at it again. Tander did nothing wrong......Scotty came across too much and tagged him, that's why he got penalised.

[Merts]

Of course he was robbed Merts. The rules are clear. Penalty for what he did is redress, not 15 seconds. Redress returns the status quo between the vehicles involved without general penalty. Thats how it is. The fact that he was unable to serve his penalty through no fault of his own does not mean the local penalty needs to be extended to a general one.

If Mclaughlin was unable to return to the track then it would necessarily need to be extended but that was not the case. Mclaughlin did return to the track unharmed from the incident and in control. Irrespective of the reason he left the track, it is his responsibility to rejoin safely. He didnt. Why should Wincup get penalised out of the race effectively for something Mclaughlin did?

I appreciate your argument and agree you have a point.

The other side of the argument however is that had Whincup not taken the 33 car out in the first place, the second incidence would never have occurred.
I don't think race control could allow Whincup to effectively get away with no penalty for doing what he did, which seems to be what you are suggesting. Anyway, what you, I, or anyone else thinks won't matter in the end. They will hear the appeal and make a determination and that will be that.

[Merts]

It looked to me that Wincup was well aware that McLaughlin was on his way back onto the track cause he was already redressing the incident, Tander was the knob who was oblivious to the situation.

Yeah....no.

Once McLaughlin was off the track, it is 100% his responsibility to re-enter safely. Tander was within his rights to position his car as he wished in relation to Whincup. He wouldn't have even been able to see McLaughlin coming.

[Joff]

I appreciate your argument and agree you have a point.

The other side of the argument however is that had Whincup not taken the 33 car out in the first place, the second incidence would never have occurred.
I don't think race control could allow Whincup to effectively get away with no penalty for doing what he did, which seems to be what you are suggesting. Anyway, what you, I, or anyone else thinks won't matter in the end. They will hear the appeal and make a determination and that will be that.

Racing is full of moments that would not have happened if a prior moment had not. You cant say that because Wincup caused the first indecent that he is responsible for the second unless it resulted directly (as in Scotty had spat back across the track still out of control). It didn't result directly and could have easily been avoided by both McLaughlin and Tander. The fact that is wasn't avoided meant the Wincup was robbed of the chance to redress. Because he was robbed of that chance he was robbed of the race.

If you are right and race control did this because "he cant get away with that" they made a very big call in escalating a penalty designed not to stifle racing (little stuff up = little local penalty that is, ideally, only between you and the dude you wronged) into a penalty that destroyed the efforts of a whole team at the biggest event of the year. The crime didn't change, just the penalty relative to the race went from 2 weeks community service to the electric chair. Is that really a fair outcome for what was nothing more than a racing misdemeanor that you see countless times at every race meet at every level?

 

[achjimmy]

Also Interesting call by race control  that Kelly's debris represented more of a danger and needed the pace car than the car in the kitty litter at the fast part of the track in the closing stages 

[Joff]

Also Interesting call by race control  that Kelly's debris represented more of a danger and needed the pace car than the car in the kitty litter at the fast part of the track in the closing stages 

There is a provision in the rules for double yellows over a limited area as long as there needs to be no one on the track. They used that at the end because there was only 2 laps to go. That off saved Davidson. Without it the Gizz would have rounded him up.

[Footy Shorts Shane]

http://www.supercars.com/news/championship/stewards-summary-supercheap-auto-bathurst-1000-2/

He is a bigger tosser than I first thought.

'I'm better than all. I don't need to wear my race suit for pre race events.'
I'm allowed to drive under safety car with my door open, 'cause I'm a super star.

The bloke's a tosser. He can steer a car, but as a professional he's got a lot to learn.

[doc evil]

Everyone's an a$$hole.........................




..........................Jimmy said so!!!!!

[Jeepers Creepers]

You need to look at it again. Tander did nothing wrong......Scotty came across too much and tagged him, that's why he got penalised.

He ran up the arse of Whincup twice trying to get through.

If he couldn't see the car in front, he had no hope of seeing the Volvo. 

But, in all fairness, I reckon Tander is a knob. (I don't think he likes me much though either)

[Streetkid]

Yeah....no.

Once McLaughlin was off the track, it is 100% his responsibility to re-enter safely. Tander was within his rights to position his car as he wished in relation to Whincup. He wouldn't have even been able to see McLaughlin coming.

McLaughlin actually enters marginally in front of both of them, literally his whole car in front of Tander, his head would have to be on backwards to not see him. Wincups crime and punishment were done with, the other two had their own altercation.

[Moxley]

McLaughlin actually enters marginally in front of both of them, literally his whole car in front of Tander, his head would have to be on backwards to not see him. Wincups crime and punishment were done with, the other two had their own altercation.

This has been a great thread to read. Multiple opinions, and often one as justifiable as the next.

[Paddler Ed]

McLaughlin's comments on his Facebook page is interesting:
" Lap 150 of 161, I made a small mistake at Forest’s Elbow, Jamie was right on me coming down Conrod, I had to block, I did in to the Chase, Jamie dived which he is 100% entitled to do, but I was going to attempt to hold my line around the outside. Jamie locked his rears and spared into me pushing me off at the chase.

This is where it got pretty hectic, I came back on the track expecting to rejoin behind the pair of them, little did I knew Jamie was trying to readdress the situation but trying to hold Garth behind him. I came back on the track gathered it up and as Garth went right to go around Jamie unfortunately we interlocked wheels and we were done both catapulting towards the fence. Both our days were done, Jamie carried on.

I don’t blame Jamie for having a go, he believes the move was on, I believe it wasn’t as he wasn’t under control of the car at the point of impact. I’ve had some awesome battles with Jamie and have a lot of respect for him and this incident doesn’t change my opinion."

[alnjan]

Well said for a young driver, will be interesting how the appeal goes.  the appeal only relates to the time penalty, not the incident, as the time penalty was not what was said in the driver's briefing or the rules book.  That's all.

[gronk]

Well said for a young driver, will be interesting how the appeal goes.  the appeal only relates to the time penalty, not the incident, as the time penalty was not what was said in the driver's briefing or the rules book.  That's all.

Yep, no ones denying he deserved a penalty, but why they are appealing is because the penalty appears to be different to what's in the rule book..

Funny how a lot of people don't like Whincup. Reminds me of the same treatment Skaife got when he was driving.

[alnjan]

Yep just have to look at it for what it is. 

People keep blaming Whincup for a lot of things but at the end of the day and at that point in the race there were three drivers and about all they would have been seeing was the checkered flag being waved for them.  Bit like the mist settling and race harder.  The other side of  would be if Whincup made the pass the commentators would have near on orgasamed on tv.

[Homer_Jay]

Funny how a lot of people don't like Whincup. Reminds me of the same treatment Skaife got when he was driving.

Tall poppy syndrome.

[achjimmy]

 The other side of  would be if Whincup made the pass the commentators would have near on orgasamed on tv.