I can't understand how the stewards can justify the deduction of all of his round points... A rule is a rule, fair enough, but if the breach gave the car no advantage at all, and may even have been a disadvantage (or so they say), What's the problem?... Give them a small fine, a slap on the wrist, and that's that...
Welcome to the all new DJR Club 17 website. We've brought a fresh new design and some great new software together on this site to help make it the one stop shop for everything DJR.
Please visit the forums, join our facebook group and share your favourite DJR photos and videos in the media gallery.
Don't forget to become a member of DJR Team Mates!
Marcos' Penalty...
- Thread starter Mitchell
- Start date
-
1. "Your knowledge and input is always welcome but please respect the team, the drivers and other members. Abuse or harsh criticisms will not be tolerated".
2. "This forum is designated 'Family Friendly' - (ie. we have young & impressionable readers - even if they're not Members/Posters) - therefore language must be moderated! - (how would YOU feel about YOUR 9 year old reading it?)
3. "Use of characters (eg. #$*@!) that only 'partially' disguise an intended vulgar/offensive word(s) is unacceptable!
If you MUST express yourself in such a manner... use ***** and let the reader's imagination 'fill in the blanks'."
Thank you for your cooperation.
What do you really expect from CAMS.
PWR is found in breach of the rule's regarding their ECU at the Clipsal 500 and they get a $1000 fine.
If SBR and Ambrose were in a Holden that's all that would happen to them. But because they drive a Ford the book get's thrown at them.
Want Proof look up Saturday 20th March in both the Konica's and V8 Supercars
http://www.cams.com.au/content.asp?pageID=Article&ObjectID=341
PWR is found in breach of the rule's regarding their ECU at the Clipsal 500 and they get a $1000 fine.
If SBR and Ambrose were in a Holden that's all that would happen to them. But because they drive a Ford the book get's thrown at them.
Want Proof look up Saturday 20th March in both the Konica's and V8 Supercars
http://www.cams.com.au/content.asp?pageID=Article&ObjectID=341
ROB17
Super Moderator
Don't worry guys. If Larry Perkins lawyer's can have Paul Dumbrell's fine and points deduction reversed after he took out 4 cars at Adelaide earlier in the year, then anything is possible 
. I firmly believe that Ambrose will either have all points re-instated, or at worst, he will have the points penalty significantly reduced. SBR will probably still receive the fine however.
I don't think CAMS would like to be responsible for a decision that will impact upon the final outcome of the Series!
. I firmly believe that Ambrose will either have all points re-instated, or at worst, he will have the points penalty significantly reduced. SBR will probably still receive the fine however.I don't think CAMS would like to be responsible for a decision that will impact upon the final outcome of the Series!
I thought that SBR might be chance of being cleared untill I found out Larry was becomeing involved trying to now get SBR excluded from the event & giving #11 the win. With Larry now involved, unfortunately I don't think SBR have a chance!! He's a cunning old bugger & rarely tastes defeat when it comes to these sort of matters. Hope I'm wrong though!
luvgreens tuf
New member
Yeah that will mean larry,s cars have been beaten by ford on 2 controversial occassions,lol.Larry start look at purchasing 4 falcons mate,least then it wont look as bad,when the same brand beats you,i agree with Rob 18 now larry,s involved well we have no hope,sadly.
luvgreens tuf
New member
And i still dont understand how PWR,just got off with a $1000 fine,for the same thing.
Attn: Mr Rob Nethercote - CEO
Dear Mr Nethercote,
Thank you for your letter dated the 6th July advising that my appeal is out of time and that you will however forward a submission to the court. I make a submission to the court for the following reasons.
The stewards have made a decision on an admitted technical breach of the rules and other evidence. The stewards appear to have not taken sufficient notice of the admitted fact that Mr Stone did not know the circumstances.
I put it to the court that Mr Stone is a very competent hands on individual and also has on his staff a Mr Ken Douglas, a electronics engineer of great experience and extremely familiar with the Motec ECU inner workings.
It is just not plausible that Mr Stone could not explain this wiring and connector and as such, an opinion then formed that there was lack of intent.
I ask the court to note that wires with connections do not just appear, but are there as a result of very deliberate intentions of the team and have to be recognised that they are there for a purpose. This purpose, for whatever reason, is clearly and intentionally illegal by all Rules.
Mr Stone states that the connection could not be used for input. I believe that the stewards, by not seeking expert technical opinions erred and have not been aware of the full facts of how a connection into a loom could have been used for inputs.
I, as an engineer in my own Perkins Technologies P/L company that produces black box data recorders for the aviation industry can inform the court that this connection can indeed be used as an input to the ECU to allow a further electronic device, be it a resistor of variable output or otherwise. This fact has been overlooked and should have been subject to intense technical and qualified scrutiny.
The stewards, from their report, state an apparent lack of any advantage. I ask the court to note that evidence of lack of advantage principally came from the Mr Stone.
The CTM, with respect, is not a person of sufficient technical skills in this expert field and may not have had sufficient expertise to deal with this complex issue.
Let me explain to the court that a connection in a loom is of extreme significance. What it could have been connected to and for, and we are not aware of any of this, is of the utmost importance and how long has this been there?
An electronics expert such as Mr Ken Douglas, a team member, has the ability to perform such a vast array of activity into the ECU, via such a connection, which is all illegal, and would be done to enhance and seek illegal traction. It is the absolute heart and soul of speed for a racecar.
It is the very reason TEGA and all the Teams spent enormous amounts of money and time to impose a controlled ECU and controlled specification wiring loom into the category.
The stewards could not have been made aware of this very significant potential advantage, as it has apparently not been submitted.
The stewards stated that the detailed submission of Mr Stone was taken into account. I ask the court to note that the so-called detailed account did not explain the only bit that needed explaining. Why have it?
I ask the court that the steward?s decision not to exclude the car based on all the facts is patently wrong. The only course of action that could have been apparent, under the circumstances, is total exclusion.
I submit that the FIA system which we all run under in various guises gives all competitors the absolute right to know that there fellow competitors car is technically legal, at all times.
The only fitting penalty is exclusion.
Recent Grand Prix?s saw F1 cars excluded for not meeting the rules on minor brake duct dimensions. This is normal and expected action by the stewards as the cars do not comply with the relevant rules and then are therefore ineligible for the competition.
Rule A 8.3 states that ?The presentation of a Car for scrutineering will be deemed an implicit statement of conformity with the rules.?
Rule A 8.4 Competitors must ensure that their Car/s comply with the conditions of the eligibility Rules throughout the meeting.
Rule A 2.2 Definitions. Car means a V8 Supercar, conforming to the eligibility requirements in these rules.
Rule A 4.1 Every person ?is deemed to have
4.1.1 acquainted themselves with the rules.
Rule A 4.3 Ignorance?s of these rules provide no excuse??.. Rules.
The Supplementary Regulations form is very clear in that a car must be a V8 Supercar (Rule 1.6.1) ?The Meeting is only for Cars that comply with Division C of the Rules.?
C8.11.8
C8.11.9
This car entered by the Stone bros did not comply to these rules.
All other cars that finished the race have been denied a rightful finish position by the fact that Car #1 of the Stone Bros did not comply to the rules and therefore have been unfairly placed lower than they should have been.
I ask the court to consider if the car in question competed in the qualifying in the same illegal manner. It appears that the Stewards did not address the probability of legal or otherwise in this extremely important part of the event.
I wish to be able to submit evidence of a circumstantial nature to the court of a monitored communication between car #1 and others just after the start of the race during the SC period.
The attached 5 pages is from our team record book. I draw your attention to page 5, third line. #1 ? ? Thanks for the start Ken (Douglas) 2?
Thank you very much for your time.
Signed
Larry Perkins
Entrant Car #11 and #8. These are the larry comments and very intresting especially when you have an understanding of Motec as a ford man through and through he still cheated and that is not on as for pwrthat was then this is now and all was aware of it
Dear Mr Nethercote,
Thank you for your letter dated the 6th July advising that my appeal is out of time and that you will however forward a submission to the court. I make a submission to the court for the following reasons.
The stewards have made a decision on an admitted technical breach of the rules and other evidence. The stewards appear to have not taken sufficient notice of the admitted fact that Mr Stone did not know the circumstances.
I put it to the court that Mr Stone is a very competent hands on individual and also has on his staff a Mr Ken Douglas, a electronics engineer of great experience and extremely familiar with the Motec ECU inner workings.
It is just not plausible that Mr Stone could not explain this wiring and connector and as such, an opinion then formed that there was lack of intent.
I ask the court to note that wires with connections do not just appear, but are there as a result of very deliberate intentions of the team and have to be recognised that they are there for a purpose. This purpose, for whatever reason, is clearly and intentionally illegal by all Rules.
Mr Stone states that the connection could not be used for input. I believe that the stewards, by not seeking expert technical opinions erred and have not been aware of the full facts of how a connection into a loom could have been used for inputs.
I, as an engineer in my own Perkins Technologies P/L company that produces black box data recorders for the aviation industry can inform the court that this connection can indeed be used as an input to the ECU to allow a further electronic device, be it a resistor of variable output or otherwise. This fact has been overlooked and should have been subject to intense technical and qualified scrutiny.
The stewards, from their report, state an apparent lack of any advantage. I ask the court to note that evidence of lack of advantage principally came from the Mr Stone.
The CTM, with respect, is not a person of sufficient technical skills in this expert field and may not have had sufficient expertise to deal with this complex issue.
Let me explain to the court that a connection in a loom is of extreme significance. What it could have been connected to and for, and we are not aware of any of this, is of the utmost importance and how long has this been there?
An electronics expert such as Mr Ken Douglas, a team member, has the ability to perform such a vast array of activity into the ECU, via such a connection, which is all illegal, and would be done to enhance and seek illegal traction. It is the absolute heart and soul of speed for a racecar.
It is the very reason TEGA and all the Teams spent enormous amounts of money and time to impose a controlled ECU and controlled specification wiring loom into the category.
The stewards could not have been made aware of this very significant potential advantage, as it has apparently not been submitted.
The stewards stated that the detailed submission of Mr Stone was taken into account. I ask the court to note that the so-called detailed account did not explain the only bit that needed explaining. Why have it?
I ask the court that the steward?s decision not to exclude the car based on all the facts is patently wrong. The only course of action that could have been apparent, under the circumstances, is total exclusion.
I submit that the FIA system which we all run under in various guises gives all competitors the absolute right to know that there fellow competitors car is technically legal, at all times.
The only fitting penalty is exclusion.
Recent Grand Prix?s saw F1 cars excluded for not meeting the rules on minor brake duct dimensions. This is normal and expected action by the stewards as the cars do not comply with the relevant rules and then are therefore ineligible for the competition.
Rule A 8.3 states that ?The presentation of a Car for scrutineering will be deemed an implicit statement of conformity with the rules.?
Rule A 8.4 Competitors must ensure that their Car/s comply with the conditions of the eligibility Rules throughout the meeting.
Rule A 2.2 Definitions. Car means a V8 Supercar, conforming to the eligibility requirements in these rules.
Rule A 4.1 Every person ?is deemed to have
4.1.1 acquainted themselves with the rules.
Rule A 4.3 Ignorance?s of these rules provide no excuse??.. Rules.
The Supplementary Regulations form is very clear in that a car must be a V8 Supercar (Rule 1.6.1) ?The Meeting is only for Cars that comply with Division C of the Rules.?
C8.11.8
C8.11.9
This car entered by the Stone bros did not comply to these rules.
All other cars that finished the race have been denied a rightful finish position by the fact that Car #1 of the Stone Bros did not comply to the rules and therefore have been unfairly placed lower than they should have been.
I ask the court to consider if the car in question competed in the qualifying in the same illegal manner. It appears that the Stewards did not address the probability of legal or otherwise in this extremely important part of the event.
I wish to be able to submit evidence of a circumstantial nature to the court of a monitored communication between car #1 and others just after the start of the race during the SC period.
The attached 5 pages is from our team record book. I draw your attention to page 5, third line. #1 ? ? Thanks for the start Ken (Douglas) 2?
Thank you very much for your time.
Signed
Larry Perkins
Entrant Car #11 and #8. These are the larry comments and very intresting especially when you have an understanding of Motec as a ford man through and through he still cheated and that is not on as for pwrthat was then this is now and all was aware of it
Got to laugh at Brock's comment's re Wiregate.
Brocky forgot that he got done for running illegal cylinder head;s did he.
Skaife cant talk either.
In 94 he won the first 4 round's of the year and there was talk of traction control so TEGA banned rear wheel sensor's and he didn't win again that year.
Brocky forgot that he got done for running illegal cylinder head;s did he.
Skaife cant talk either.
In 94 he won the first 4 round's of the year and there was talk of traction control so TEGA banned rear wheel sensor's and he didn't win again that year.
I have to agree with you on both counts big col
I can clearly remember 1994 Skaife was dominating the season and as soon as all the talk about traction control started it was strange that they went very ordinary after all the traction talk.
And i know i might get shouted down here but i am still very suspicious about HRT when they dominated the championship the grip the HRT cars used to get out of corners was unbelievable.
And on Brock on RPM the other day it looked like Brocky is back on the funny stuff
I can clearly remember 1994 Skaife was dominating the season and as soon as all the talk about traction control started it was strange that they went very ordinary after all the traction talk.
And i know i might get shouted down here but i am still very suspicious about HRT when they dominated the championship the grip the HRT cars used to get out of corners was unbelievable.
And on Brock on RPM the other day it looked like Brocky is back on the funny stuff
I think all of the teams are looking to create a "better mousetrap". As DJ mentioned in his Autobiography, regards the Sierra's performance and subsequent disqualification at Lakeside in 1987, it wasn't illegal - but was bordering on illegal. It's simply a case of getting an edge on your competitors.
I still remember clearly in them early rounds of 94, I think it was the Tasmania round when Brock had a go at Skaifey on the podiom saying that "Skaifey had the traction well under control today". When they banned the wheel sensors after that round, Skaife went from unbeatable to not winning another race that year. Geez it's good to see him struggling again in 2004!!!