Brumos Daytona Winner found underweight after race

[URY914]

Found this on another forum...

the car was found to be 12# underweight:

"From the press release: "The winning No. 58 Brumos Racing Porsche Riley was found to be out of compliance for minimum vehicle weight in post-race technical inspection. The car was found to be 12 pounds underweight. The team was fined $5,000 in addition to five driver, team and manufacturer points. This will not affect the race results."

[Buckterrier]

WOW no kidding???? Wouldn't they find that stuff in pre-race inspection? Or maybe it was removable lead ballast or something?

[legion]

1.5 gallons of water weighs twelve pounds.

You'd think with the cool suit, cooling system, and driver water they could easily lose that much water over the course of a race.

Throw in brake pads and tires, and it seems pretty easy to get there without breaking any other rules.

I'm going to assume fuel weight is compensated for somehow.

[Jim Richards]

You're supposed to factor all those things into your vehicle weight and try to have enough margin to ensure you finish with at least the minimum weight for your class. They were in the wrong and really should be DQ, IMO.

[URY914]

Two pistons/cylinders, valves etc would have fixed it.....

[Skytrooper]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

You're supposed to factor all those things into your vehicle weight and try to have enough margin to ensure you finish with at least the minimum weight for your class. They were in the wrong and really should be DQ, IMO.

Try being the key word Jim. It will never be an exact science. I certainly do not think a DQ is in order unless they can indisputably come up with evidence that shows it was intentional. Using your arguement, the Porsche Cup driver (I know it is not the same race) that ran out of fuel before reaching the pits after qualifying should have been disqualified instead of starting at the back of the pack since his crew knowingly put less than the required amount of fuel in to guarantee he made it back to the pits. Now if you are still with me, and he had less fuel than required but enough to make it back to the pits..is this a "No fault..No foul" type of situation ?

I am not trying to flame you. I just want to find out where you are coming from.

[mattdavis11]

I can't wait to hear what JPM has to say about all this. It's no wonder now why the 58 won.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Skytrooper

Try being the key word Jim. It will never be an exact science. I certainly do not think a DQ is in order unless they can indisputably come up with evidence that shows it was intentional. Using your arguement, the Porsche Cup driver (I know it is not the same race) that ran out of fuel before reaching the pits after qualifying should have been disqualified instead of starting at the back of the pack since his crew knowingly put less than the required amount of fuel in to guarantee he made it back to the pits. Now if you are still with me, and he had less fuel than required but enough to make it back to the pits..is this a "No fault..No foul" type of situation ?

I am not trying to flame you. I just want to find out where you are coming from.

Fair response. I would counter that trying includes bulding in enough margin to err on the side of caution, or compliance.

To your excellent second example, it is "qualifying" for position to start the race. If the car was not compliant technically, DQ might be appropriate if it's something that cannot be corrected prior to the race. If the car was underfueled, a back of the grid penalty might be appropriate to negate their advantange. This differs from being non-compliant in the actual race, as the race is the final outcome. Being non-compliant in qualy on something correctable like fuel load is not the same as being non-compliant in the actual race. There, it's too late to correct and the advantage was already in hand.

[legion]

Racing is the art of getting as close to the line (handling, rules, etc.) as possible without going over.

Heck, a dryer than expected day could easily account for increased evaporation from the source I indicated over 24 hours. So could a small coolant leak that occured at the end of the race--not enough to pit for and risk the victory.

[boba]

They finished on reserve so low on fuel, they were also adding oil and water during the race which they did not top off on the last stop. This is how they could have been light.

Not an excuse just an answer for the question "how did it happen?"

[racemor]

Right Bob. I remember Mike Colluci's "seeping" oil comment and was wondering how many quarts would make up 12 pounds.

[legion]

12 pounds is a mistake, perhaps an honest one.

50 lbs. is a scandal.

[Jim Richards]

tell that to the second place team

[legion]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

tell that to the second place team

I hear that JPM lost his brain years ago, making him 12 lbs. underweight as a driver. (At the very least, the connection between his brain and mouth appears to be severed.)

[Jim Richards]

indeed

[BK911]

I don't get it. IMO they should have the win taken away. 12#'s under and it's ok? What about 15? 50? Where do you draw the line? The fine is a joke, but it says they did something wrong and didn't follow the rules. The first team to cross the finish line that followed ALL the rules should get the win. IMO of course.

[mattdavis11]

They ought to throw the 58 team in jail. That's theft of cash money, which probably amounts to enough coin for felony charges.

[North Coast Cab]

This rule is black and white. Maybe not DQ, but some sort of time or lap penalty is in order. No excuse for such a mistake.

[URY914]

I think the rules say that it must weigh "X" and the car should be in race condition with oil water and fuel on board. If you had a water or oil leak or ran out of gas that is not a race condition.

No harm no foul.

[Noah930]

Wonder how the FIA would have ruled on this one...