2016 Virgin Australia Supercars Championship - Results and TalkTouring Cars

[prisonermonkeys]

7 out of Brock's 9 wins at Bathurst were in what was arguably one of the two best funded teams in the country that didn't want for anything!

I don't think that this undermines Phil Brock's opinion. Sure, Peter Brock might have enjoyed a close relationship with a well-funded team, but he knew what it took to succeed at the Mountain. I'm sure he'd appreciate an under-funded single-car team overcoming the odds to succeed. Look at all of the pre-race talk; Triple Eight were widely expected to dominate, with an on-form Tander tipped to be the person most likely to take the fight to them. Nobody considered Tekno Autosports at all.

 

[05XR8]

I don't think that this undermines Phil Brock's opinion. Sure, Peter Brock might have enjoyed a close relationship with a well-funded team, but he knew what it took to succeed at the Mountain. I'm sure he'd appreciate an under-funded single-car team overcoming the odds to succeed. Look at all of the pre-race talk; Triple Eight were widely expected to dominate, with an on-form Tander tipped to be the person most likely to take the fight to them. Nobody considered Tekno Autosports at all.

No one expected WIL DAVISON to be a contender. It's a T8 car. Pretty much in the T8 camp. They have finished 2nd in the C'hip and been fast in the last few years with Giz.

 

[Pete05]

I don't think that this undermines Phil Brock's opinion. Sure, Peter Brock might have enjoyed a close relationship with a well-funded team, but he knew what it took to succeed at the Mountain. I'm sure he'd appreciate an under-funded single-car team overcoming the odds to succeed. Look at all of the pre-race talk; Triple Eight were widely expected to dominate, with an on-form Tander tipped to be the person most likely to take the fight to them. Nobody considered Tekno Autosports at all.

I have no doubt Peter would've taken delight in seeing, not only Tekno win but also, LDM standing on the podium.
After all, his '75 win with Gown-Hindhaugh was done on the smell of an oily rag and, his '87 win was achieved in a car no one in his team expected to last the distance.

 

[TiZzla]

So while everyone freaks out about who was at fault yesterday, the real story is that Shane now has about 140 points over Jamie for the title. As a kiwi this is very exciting, i've been watching this series for the past 15 years or so and would absolutely love to see a kiwi take the series win. Fingers crossed he can stay out of trouble and maintain that lead until the end!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So while everyone freaks out about who was at fault yesterday, the real story is that Shane now has about 140 points over Jamie for the title. As a kiwi this is very exciting, i've been watching this series for the past 15 years or so and would absolutely love to see a kiwi take the series win. Fingers crossed he can stay out of trouble and maintain that lead until the end!

Meh SVG, I mean good for kiwi's I suppose.

 

[05XR8]

Would closing the pits during a Safety Car, be a good move?

 

[Pete05]

Would closing the pits during a Safety Car, be a good move?

Less Safety Cars would be better.

We just had a perfect example of how this is possible when Frosty went off at The Chase and, they used double waved yellows, like they used to, at the corner with highest v max in the land.

 

[LumpiestFish]

Less Safety Cars would be better.

We just had a perfect example of how this is possible when Frosty went off at The Chase and, they used double waved yellows, like they used to, at the corner with highest v max in the land.

When Frosty went off, a safety car was called, when T.Kelly went off, it was doubled yellows. Difference is that a recovery effort was made for Frosty's car, meaning a tractor and marshals were out very close to the track. With Kelly's off, no recovery effort was made, and he could easily leave the car and walk off when told he is safe. Without the tractors and marshals, there was no real danger to any one extra.

 

[Andrew R]

That actually seemed fairly dangerous leaving Kelly's car out there to me. They couldn't overtake there but they certainly didn't slow down. It would've only taken something like frosty's off and it would've been a mess. I understand nobody wants to see the race end under yellow but it sort of goes against some of the over-officiating they love to do about safety.

 

[Com Fox]

Would closing the pits during a Safety Car, be a good move?

Problem would be if a car actually desperately needs to enter (like so low that once the pits open you won't be able to make it to the pits) but can't due to safety car.

I think they need to adopt the F1s Virtual Safety Car ruling for small incidents, especially if the car or debris isn't on the road.

 

[Pete05]

When Frosty went off, a safety car was called, when T.Kelly went off, it was doubled yellows. Difference is that a recovery effort was made for Frosty's car, meaning a tractor and marshals were out very close to the track. With Kelly's off, no recovery effort was made, and he could easily leave the car and walk off when told he is safe. Without the tractors and marshals, there was no real danger to any one extra.

Doh!
Apologies, I got my cars mixed up

You raise some very good points here & this is where technology can help.
Race Control have the ability to monitor sector times and could issue a PLP to those that don't slow 'enough'.
What drives me absolutely bonkers is, there's no need to shut down the whole lap with a SC on any track.
The sector that involves the incident can be controlled with double yellows, the preceding sector has a single yellow (if needed) and, once the cars a well clear, they receive the green flag to resume racing.
The only time a SC should be used for the whole lap is something like fog or torrential rain.

 

[05XR8]

4 cars went off at The Chase(McLaughlin, Frosty, T.Kelly and Courtney. I think there was a high probability another car could have collected T.Kelly's Altima.

Closing the pits at Safety Cars, rolls the dice even more with the strategy. Instead of banking on a Safety Car, just run what you can. Look how all the drivers & teams panicked for the 90laps. Look how many people were scared RBRA were going to win with that lead. Open the pits at a green flag and see who is where. Would have mixed things up royally by not having cars stack.


http://www.supercars.com/news/champ...supercheap-auto-bathurst-1000-2/?sf38450227=1

 

[Com Fox]

4 cars went off at The Chase(McLaughlin, Frosty, T.Kelly and Courtney. I think there was a high probability another car could have collected T.Kelly's Altima.

Closing the pits at Safety Cars, rolls the dice even more with the strategy. Instead of banking on a Safety Car, just run what you can. Look how all the drivers & teams panicked for the 90laps. Look how many people were scared RBRA were going to win with that lead. Open the pits at a green flag and see who is where. Would have mixed things up royally by not having cars stack.


http://www.supercars.com/news/champ...supercheap-auto-bathurst-1000-2/?sf38450227=1

I think it would do the opposite and infact pit strategies would be stock as there would hardly be any changes to your strategy when the safety car comes along. Everyone would pit on the best laps to pit since there wouldn't be any alternative strategies to come by because you can't pit on a SC where it is the best time to pit

It might as well be Blancpain where everyone has to pit at the same time.

Strategies built around the safety car are more interesting IMO, not only are there more variants on strategy, since it comes to prediction and there is panic when the prediction is wrong and you are forced to change strategy due to races unpredictability.

---------

Just read about the Clipsal 500 reverting back to 2 races. I am extremely happy about that, Super Street should always be 2 races, like a solo endurance.

IMO the formats should be.

Endurance: All 1 race.
Super Street: 2 races.
Super Sprint: 2 Short races + 1 long race (I think having no pit strategy sprint races allows for more natural racing to be key and since they are short the race finishes before they go dull.
International Super Sprint: 2 races (same format as we have for our current Super Sprints, as this is the best way to showcase Supercars to the world IMO, instead for 4 sprint races)

 

[legatoblues]

Would closing the pits during a Safety Car, be a good move?

No.

We had those rules in the past....there's a reason why they were scrapped, buried and forgotten.

Closing the pits under safety car is a horrible rule that interrupts and completely destroys the natural flow of the race (Indycar is the best example of this today, there's been at least 2 or 3 races each season for the last 3 years effected by it).

 

[TDZdave]

They only left Kelly's car out there because it was so close to the end, if it went off with 5 laps to go they would have recovered it,

 

[CodeRedR51]

The only time a SC should be used for the whole lap is something like fog or torrential rain.

SuperGT is a pretty good example of "no SC unless absolutely needed" but I often find myself cringing while I watch safety workers attempt to clean up a small incident with cars at nearly full speed zooming by.

I'm more surprised the the "Code 60" rule hasn't swept over more racing series. Or something similar to what they use during the Nurburgring 24Hr with a slow zone in that area until the mess is cleaned up.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Having finally watched replays of the Whincup incident, I think the penalty was definitely deserved. He clearly slowed coming out of the Chase to avoid losing a position to Tander while redressing the place to McLaughlin. McLaughlin's re-entry was sloppy, but he only hit Tander because Whincup slowed down. If Whincup had continued at racing speed, McLaughlin would not have hit Tander.

 

[legatoblues]

SuperGT is a pretty good example of "no SC unless absolutely needed" but I often find myself cringing while I watch safety workers attempt to clean up a small incident with cars at nearly full speed zooming by.

I'm more surprised the the "Code 60" rule hasn't swept over more racing series. Or something similar to what they use during the Nurburgring 24Hr with a slow zone in that area until the mess is cleaned up.

Agree with all this, however, what we often don't see in those Super GT scenarios is the intervention vehicles parked about before the corner, clearly marking the scenario and effected area for the drivers.

 

[Spacegoat]

Just got back from Bathurst yesterday*. Not going to comment much on the Whincup/McLaughlin/Tander incident. It's already been well covered. @prisonermonkeys summed the incident up perfectly in his previous post. Whincup was completely at fault. It's laughable that he only got a measly 15 second penalty and even more laughable that RBRA are appealing it.

*If anyone is interested. Here's my pics from the weekend.

 

[LumpiestFish]

Having finally watched replays of the Whincup incident, I think the penalty was definitely deserved. He clearly slowed coming out of the Chase to avoid losing a position to Tander while redressing the place to McLaughlin. McLaughlin's re-entry was sloppy, but he only hit Tander because Whincup slowed down. If Whincup had continued at racing speed, McLaughlin would not have hit Tander.

That is exactly what I think of the whole situation, you've pretty much written my thoughts so accurately that it's a little bit freaky.



I've also seen heaps of people on Facebook and stuff, blaming Tander for moving over and trying to pass Whincup, and causing the accident, saying that he should've been patient. In a situation like that, telling a racing driver to be patient is like telling a fish to climb a tree, it's obviously not going to happen. Tander wouldn't have known that McLaughlin was going to appear on the track so suddenly, so of course he would have made a move as soon as it was possible.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That is exactly what I think of the whole situation, you've pretty much written my thoughts so accurately that it's a little bit freaky.



I've also seen heaps of people on Facebook and stuff, blaming Tander for moving over and trying to pass Whincup, and causing the accident, saying that he should've been patient. In a situation like that, telling a racing driver to be patient is like telling a fish to climb a tree, it's obviously not going to happen. Tander wouldn't have known that McLaughlin was going to appear on the track so suddenly, so of course he would have made a move as soon as it was possible.

It's only freaky for me because it's PM doing it

 

[05XR8]

We'll see what's in-store during Inside Supercars.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've also seen heaps of people on Facebook and stuff, blaming Tander for moving over and trying to pass Whincup, and causing the accident, saying that he should've been patient.

Tander had every right to continue at racing speed, and to expect that Whincup would do so.

Yes, technically, Tander caused the accident. He was the faster car, and he was the one with the responsibility to execute the pass in a safe manner. However, as Whincup was deliberately driving slowly on the racing line, he is the one who has to shoulder the responsibility for the accident. Had he been travelling at racing speed, Tander would not have made contact.

 

[legatoblues]

Tander had every right to continue at racing speed, and to expect that Whincup would do so.

Yes, technically, Tander caused the accident. He was the faster car, and he was the one with the responsibility to execute the pass in a safe manner. However, as Whincup was deliberately driving slowly on the racing line, he is the one who has to shoulder the responsibility for the accident. Had he been travelling at racing speed, Tander would not have made contact.

This.

It's the unsafe redress that is the big issue and is the element that should be under the most scrutiny.

I like the idea of a redress being an option for smaller incidents, but only when both drivers can resume in exactly the same positions, with no immediate gain or loss for either driver.

What I don't agree with is the redress being used as a "Let's just pretend that didn't happen" when a driver has been massively disadvantaged or hindered. Best example is the Kelly / Pither incident, where Pither dropped 10 positions as a result and a redress was ordered.....sorry, but that's taking it too far. And that's without bringing up the fact that Kelly never actually completed the redress....

 

[ScottPuss20]

Tander had every right to continue at racing speed, and to expect that Whincup would do so.

Yes, technically, Tander caused the accident. He was the faster car, and he was the one with the responsibility to execute the pass in a safe manner. However, as Whincup was deliberately driving slowly on the racing line, he is the one who has to shoulder the responsibility for the accident. Had he been travelling at racing speed, Tander would not have made contact.

Tander was not expecting Whincup to brake so suddenly whilst redressing for McLaughlin. Whincup had NO reason to stop so suddenly. He could've redressed further down the track, allowing all drivers involved to continue at race pace. I'm pretty sure that a few people said this in regards to the accident. It would be the best option, if the same scenario ever unfolded again.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Whincup had NO reason to stop so suddenly. He could've redressed further down the track, allowing all drivers involved to continue at race pace.

Whincup didn't just randomly jump on the brakes. This is, after all, a professional motor race, not a GT6 online lobby. So yes, he did have a reason for doing what he did; it just wasn't a very good one.

You are correct in saying that Whincup could have redressed further down the road. But he was clearly trying to redress the position to McLaughlin without losing position to Tander. Had the move worked, McLaughlin would have rejoined the circuit ahead of Whincup, who would have been ahead of Tander. The problem was that Whincup had no right to be going that slowly. His move on McLaughlin was messy, and the redress was a suitable penalty. If redressing meant yielding a place to Tander, then Whincup should have taken his lumps and yielded. He had the pace to re-take the position anyway.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Whincup didn't just randomly jump on the brakes. This is, after all, a professional motor race, not a GT6 online lobby. So yes, he did have a reason for doing what he did; it just wasn't a very good one.

You are correct in saying that Whincup could have redressed further down the road. But he was clearly trying to redress the position to McLaughlin without losing position to Tander. Had the move worked, McLaughlin would have rejoined the circuit ahead of Whincup, who would have been ahead of Tander. The problem was that Whincup had no right to be going that slowly. His move on McLaughlin was messy, and the redress was a suitable penalty. If redressing meant yielding a place to Tander, then Whincup should have taken his lumps and yielded. He had the pace to re-take the position anyway.

So what you're basically saying is that Whincup shouldn't have made the dive on McLaughlin in the first place? That seems fair.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So what you're basically saying is that Whincup shouldn't have made the dive on McLaughlin in the first place? That seems fair.

No, I'm saying that he can't have it both ways. If he does something that deserves a penalty, then he should take that penalty. He shouldn't compromise another driver's race because it's convenient for him.

 

[05XR8]

Looking at the forests elbow footage. People just leaving the door open for Giz is appalling.

 

[Furinkazen]

Looking at the forests elbow footage. People just leaving the door open for Giz is appalling.

To be fair... If they didn't do that they would end up in Forest Elbow...