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