IMSA Race 2015 Rolex 24 at Daytona

[Matt]

lmao, the requirements for a Am in the Rolex 24 is 4hr30min.

Adler did 1hr54min, and Papadopoulos did 3hr39min.

That's not missing by a few minutes, did they just expect no one to notice?

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

The only thing that's troubling to me is that the penalty for WTR was clearly described in the rule book, and yet... they decided after the fact to ignore it. That really bothers me.

-mike

This is the ONLY problem I have. Both infractions, however different, have the same penalty, yet one was rewritten after the fact and the other upheld.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Matt

lmao, the requirements for a Am in the Rolex 24 is 4hr30min.

Adler did 1hr54min, and Papadopoulos did 3hr39min.

That's not missing by a few minutes, did they just expect no one to notice?

And yet it took IMSA only 9 days or so to announce this...

[johncho]

There are some other DNf'ers who didnt meet minimum drive times, that get more points than the 10 car?? Like the 0 deltawing and the 2 hpd? Hows that work?

[BullMan]

Originally Posted by johncho

There are some other DNf'ers who didnt meet minimum drive times, that get more points than the 10 car?? Like the 0 deltawing and the 2 hpd? Hows that work?

Because the penalty for violating max drive time is zero points. WTR got off easy. They broke a rule, so they get penalized.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by johncho

There are some other DNf'ers who didnt meet minimum drive times, that get more points than the 10 car?? Like the 0 deltawing and the 2 hpd? Hows that work?

That's funny, I've never thought of a DNF like that!

I prefer having a rule that you have to be running at the end of the race to collect points, that would make endurance a bigger part of the race.

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by joeb

That's funny, I've never thought of a DNF like that!

I prefer having a rule that you have to be running at the end of the race to collect points, that would make endurance a bigger part of the race.

But then it would be proper endurance racing, totally not 'murrican.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by wdave0

But then it would be proper endurance racing, totally not 'murrican.

They do that sorta of lameness at Spa 24 as well

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by joeb

I prefer having a rule that you have to be running at the end of the race to collect points, that would make endurance a bigger part of the race.

What if a team is running at the end but finish behind a team who has DNF'ed but completed more laps?

Originally Posted by Chiana

They do that sorta of lameness at Spa 24 as well

They award 6H and 12H points but I'm pretty sure you have to finish the race to get 24H points.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by joeb

I prefer having a rule that you have to be running at the end of the race to collect points, that would make endurance a bigger part of the race.

Nah, that actually makes sense. Can't do that.

Originally Posted by Salamus

What if a team is running at the end but finish behind a team who has DNF'ed but completed more laps?

This is where a percentage of race finish rule comes in, right?

[Lanky Turtle]

Originally Posted by Matt

lmao, the requirements for a Am in the Rolex 24 is 4hr30min.

Adler did 1hr54min, and Papadopoulos did 3hr39min.

That's not missing by a few minutes, did they just expect no one to notice?

I believe they may have thought that the drivers that did not meet minimum drive time would not score points, but the other drivers still would.

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

This is where a percentage of race finish rule comes in, right?

Certainly true but what about those rare cases where a car DNFs with 30 min to go? Its competitor behind it finishes the race (let's say completes 85%+) but didn't have enough time to overtake them.

Originally Posted by Lanky Turtle

I believe they may have thought that the drivers that did not meet minimum drive time would not score points, but the other drivers still would.

That makes sense.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by Salamus

Certainly true but what about those rare cases where a car DNFs with 30 min to go? Its competitor behind it finishes the race (let's say completes 85%+) but didn't have enough time to overtake them.

Wouldn't it be compared to the distance completed by class leader and not time, so the finishing order wouldn't change and if both complete 85%, both receive points in finishing order? Don't hit 85%, 0 points.

everyone should be gllad I don't run IMSA

[Salamus]

Originally Posted by fieldodreams79

everyone should be gllad I don't run IMSA

It would be interesting if everyone here got to run a championship. That thing would crash and burn real quick. Sorta like that Todd Snider quote.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by Salamus

It would be interesting if everyone here got to run a championship. That thing would crash and burn real quick. Sorta like that Todd Snider quote.

[J Jay]

Beaux Barfield on MWM right now and Hindhaugh gets the BAR1/WTR questions straight in there, let's see what he says...

They apparently knew about WTR going over time during the race (which was perhaps not the case with BAR1), but there was unanimous agreement within the stewards' office that the penalty stated in the rules was too harsh. The discrepancy between BAR1 and WTR's sanctions was brushed off. The exact quote when asked how the other (P) teams would react was "...that's the decision and we're moving on from that." I'm getting the implication that because the length of WTR's violation was much shorter than BAR1's then IMSA felt discretion was necessary in the former.

Barfield says the sheer number of drivers involved in the race led to the decisions taking a long time. There are now plans to monitor this (driver time) in real-time with computer-aided systems.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Beaux Barfield on MWM right now and Hindhaugh gets the BAR1/WTR questions straight in there, let's see what he says...

They apparently knew about WTR going over time during the race (which was perhaps not the case with BAR1), but there was unanimous agreement within the stewards' office that the penalty stated in the rules was too harsh. The discrepancy between BAR1 and WTR's sanctions was brushed off. The exact quote when asked how the other (P) teams would react was "...that's the decision and we're moving on from that." I'm getting the implication that because the length of WTR's violation was much shorter than BAR1's then IMSA felt discretion was necessary in the former.

Barfield says the sheer number of drivers involved in the race led to the decisions taking a long time. There are now plans to monitor this (driver time) in real-time with computer-aided systems.

They are two separate types of violation with separate circumstances/parameters. WTR is a pro class car with an overage of drive time. BAR1 is a AM class with a minimum time violation. They have changed the rule going forward for the P class.

Pit rules will be changed before Sebring as well!









L.P.

[Maelochs]

"There are now plans to monitor this (driver time) in real-time with computer-aided systems."

Again racing leads to technological leaps.

Seriously, these guys haven't figured out that one computer an do all the tracking and calculating that about two dozen people can do ... in a millisecond?

I guess we can accept that Beaux Barfield didn't have time to actually read the rules before the race started ... and I can see where the actual infractions shouldn't invalidate 23.7 hours of racing. I can even see (or at least imagine seeing) where the PC violation-not meeting min time--could be viewed as a different penalty from the #10's.

Please, TUSC, get it All right for Sebring. Please.

[FLGTFAN]

Originally Posted by Salamus

What if a team is running at the end but finish behind a team who has DNF'ed but completed more laps?

Then you should be told that your team did NOT do better than a DNF. Scoring (and points) should be based on laps completed. Period. Don't get me started on the skeletons that roll out of the garage at Le Mans during the last hour. It's pathetic. I don't even like the IMSA 70% rule. That team showed up and made the effort. If they finished DNF in 9th place then at least they tried. It's pretty safe to say that no rational being would start-and-park for IMSA's meager payouts.

The counter-argument is weak. How many times does a legitimately running race car finish behind a DNF?

[FLGTFAN]

Originally Posted by TRspitfirefan

"Not understanding" is not the problem here. The second wave-by (LDWB) is for cars that wound up between the pace car and the overall leader, by simply not pitting when the lead lap cars do. Then after regaining a lap by taking the LDWB teams are allowed to pit before the yellow is ended.
How is this not a free lap back?

Excellent post. And the lack of responses is telling.

[Coach Ep]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

"There are now plans to monitor this (driver time) in real-time with computer-aided systems."

Again racing leads to technological leaps.

Seriously, these guys haven't figured out that one computer an do all the tracking and calculating that about two dozen people can do ... in a millisecond?

I guess we can accept that Beaux Barfield didn't have time to actually read the rules before the race started ... and I can see where the actual infractions shouldn't invalidate 23.7 hours of racing. I can even see (or at least imagine seeing) where the PC violation-not meeting min time--could be viewed as a different penalty from the #10's.

Please, TUSC, get it All right for Sebring. Please.

He was re-appointed as IMSA's race director in September last year. He's also the person who's ultimately responsible for coming up with the sporting regulations and made/oversaw a couple of changes (being made) in the off season to said regs.

Draw your own conclusions from there...

[Mike Hedlund]

Originally Posted by TRspitfirefan

"Not understanding" is not the problem here. The second wave-by (LDWB) is for cars that wound up between the pace car and the overall leader, by simply not pitting when the lead lap cars do. Then after regaining a lap by taking the LDWB teams are allowed to pit before the yellow is ended.
How is this not a free lap back?

My point is it's not guaranteed that for every FCY you'll get a lap back (if you're down to your classes leader). There's no guarantee the leaders will pit on every FCY. And even if they do get the wave around, it's not guaranteed that you'll be able to pit yourself (when they open for everyone) and get back out and caught up to the pack before it goes green.

Clearly, you can make up laps over a race distance (especially the longer races) but it's not automatic. Personally, I think it's too easy to get laps back.. but that's neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by FLGTFAN

Excellent post. And the lack of responses is telling.

Telling of what? Why don't you educate us with your vast knowledge and add to the discussion instead of inflating your post count and bringing nothing to the conversation?

-mike

[Maelochs]

I think the point here is that often, if not always, cars can get a free lap by using the LDWB, and pretty much everyone thinks that sucks. I cannot think of any sport which gives away free points just because a team is losing. I don't really want TUSC racing to be the example.

Mr. Hedlund says "Personally, I think it's too easy to get laps back.. but that's neither here nor there." I disagree strongly. It is Here, and Right There.

The fact that (though it is only personal opinion) just about everyone one I have spoken with and every poster I have read holds that same opinion says that there really is something wrong here. I am not going to go all batsh!t about it, but the whole point seems to be that it is too easy to get laps back. As far as I understand racing, teams actually have to Race to get laps back ... except in TUSC. That's the whole point.

Now ... on to other points?

[chernaudi]

NASCAR has a wave around system for cars one or more laps down, but it's contingent on pitting or not; if you pit, you can't use the wave around without getting a penalty, or if you don't pit, you can use the wave around, and have to gamble on a caution period to get back on sequence with the leaders.

I personally think that the way the rule's implemented in IMSA is easily understood, but there's quite a few posters of the opinion that it sucks anyways. IMO, pretty much end of story there--people who want to see a rule abolished because they don't like it.

[FLGTFAN]

Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund

Telling of what? Why don't you educate us with your vast knowledge and add to the discussion instead of inflating your post count and bringing nothing to the conversation?

I wasn't taking a shot at you, or at least wasn't trying to. I can see how you got that impression, so my apologies. My statement was intended for all those who support/defend the rule (duly noted that you don't necessarily do).