WSBK 2013 - Round 4 - Monza (05.12.13)

[Spec-ECU]

I think it would be hysterical if all of a sudden the Ducs in WSBK suddenly became extremely competitive while the GP bikes hovered in mediocrity - it would surely reveal what the true issue at Ducati is.

2011. :nerd

 

[RaptorFA]

Umm, ahhh...

:laughing

 

[Spec-ECU]

Umm, ahhh...

:laughing

I meant, it's already happened.

 

[RaptorFA]

Gotcha! :laughing I thought that's what you meant. I just had to bust that dog out there!

 

[RaptorFA]

So I guess Tom Keeps third. If Aprilia were going to appeal, they would have done so by now. So Guinters up by 13 going into Donnington! 3 points could be huge down the stretch, but hey, it is what it is. We move on.

 

[Kurosaki]

I mean... it's only 3 points. Not like championships are decided by such small margins or anything.

 

[budman]

.5 is enough...ask Tom.

 

[Kurosaki]

.5 is enough...ask Tom.

You mods still workin' on getting that sarcasm meter, huh? I sure could use it.:

 

[DaveT319]

I think a guy that runs off the track with a lot of paved run-off area, they should lose like ten places(at least)! Jeesh...if the run-off wasn't there it would be a crash. They're lucky they could still continue to race, even with a stiff penalty (to the back etc...). Without run-off it would likely be a crash and no continued race at all.

I don't really agree with that, especially since they were on the last lap and 8 seconds ahead of 5th. He certainly should have been expected/forced to come back on behind Quintoli, but there's no sense in making him lose 10 spots. Maybe if it happens on the first lap, but not on the last.

So I guess Tom Keeps third. If Aprilia were going to appeal, they would have done so by now. So Guinters up by 13 going into Donnington! 3 points could be huge down the stretch, but hey, it is what it is. We move on.

I have a feeling Aprilia will re-appeal it, because they're right. On the last lap, to re-enter ahead of Guinters AND to slow him down in the process, Sykes should lose that spot. There should be a "penalty" for running off track like that. As it is, because it's paved all through there and there's nothing to slow them down, there's nothing keeping them from doing exactly what he did. And with the number of times they penalized other riders for the same thing at the other chicane (making Rea drop back two spots; ride-thru for Cluzel; and I think there was at least one other), if they DON'T penalize Sykes it looks like favoritism because of his status in the series.

 

[budman]

You mods still workin' on getting that sarcasm meter, huh? I sure could use it.:

I was only agreeing with you. Us old guys do that once in a while :laughing

 

[Ducky_Fresh]

Rules are rules and that track affords certain luxuries. Dont like it, update rules, change or remove track.

I want Ginters to get third, based on what i saw and ethics.

But based on the rules, as I understand them, Tom ran off and reentered while not gaining an advantage. Fair manuever.

 

[DaveT319]

But based on the rules, as I understand them, Tom ran off and reentered while not gaining an advantage. Fair manuever.

Then can you explain why when Cluzel ran through at the first chicane on the 5th lap of the 1st race (where they have the barriers that slow them down), taking him from 8th to 14th place, was then also forced to do a ride-thru? And when Rea did the same thing in the same place, falling from 6th to 9th, he was then ordered to drop back 2 places more. Yet when Giuliano ALSO did the same thing at the same place, going from 6th to 10th, no penalty was assessed.

So to me, the biggest issue is the very apparent inconsistent application of the rules. Three riders, same mistake at the same place, three different outcomes: ride-thru, lose 2 places on track, no additional penalty.

On top of that, although Sykes did not directly gain an advantage - as in move up spaces - he DID gain an advantage over Guintoli because Sykes held him up when he re-entered. So Sykes lost ground on Melandri in 2nd, but he also caused Guintoli to lose ground as well.

The rule needs to be clear and simple: if you run off track at a chicane that has paved run-off areas, you must re-enter at least one place further back than where you were prior to running off. At the first chicane, this is accomplished with the barriers on that section of tarmac (which is actually part of the track in different configurations). At the second chicane where there are no barriers, they should just know to fall back at least one spot. If they don't, then force them back 2 spots, or impose a ride-thru. But as it was, there were 4 different results of basically the same event with 3 different applications of the rules. That, to me, is unacceptable.

 

[Spec-ECU]

(1) Then can you explain why when Cluzel ran through at the first chicane on the 5th lap of the 1st race (where they have the barriers that slow them down), taking him from 8th to 14th place, was then also forced to do a ride-thru? And when (2) Rea did the same thing in the same place, falling from 6th to 9th, he was then ordered to drop back 2 places more. Yet when (3) Giuliano ALSO did the same thing at the same place, going from 6th to 10th, no penalty was assessed.

1. Cluzel didn't take the correct line through the run-off area, hence his further penalty of a ride-through.

2. Rea got his penalty to drop two places back for clipping a safety bale through the same run-off.

3. I can only imagine that Gugliano did not incur any further penalties when he went through the T1 run-off because he stayed in the intened line, and did not clip the safety barriers like the previous two had.

Clearly, different runoffs around the track have their own regulations. The T1 runoff is special because it guarantees you WILL lose position(s), unlike the runoff in Della Rogia, where you can come back on track and maintain your position if safe to.

Hope this helps.

 

[DaveT319]

Yes it does. That information was not available from the coverage I watched.

So what did Cluzel do? Run onto the grass to avoid the barriers? And for Rea, clipping a barrier should not carry a penalty like that, unless he just plowed through it.

 

[Spec-ECU]

I had to read the post-race press releases to get the stories, because like you, I had no idea why the penalties where being through while I was watching the race.

Don't know exactly what Cluzel did, unfortunately. And this is not exactly a statement for or against further penalties through the runoffs, but as I mentioned, the chicane-within-the-chicane in the runoff guarantees both safe re-entry AND losing position(s), so race direction probably implements the penalties to discourage riders from rushing through the safety system they've created (think speed limit through the pits for ride-throughs).

My :2cents.

 

[kevin 714]

GPone reporting niccolo canepa will be wild cardingf for the factory ducati team at donnginton

 

[ColaGuy]

Then can you explain why when Cluzel ran through at the first chicane on the 5th lap of the 1st race (where they have the barriers that slow them down), taking him from 8th to 14th place, was then also forced to do a ride-thru? And when Rea did the same thing in the same place, falling from 6th to 9th, he was then ordered to drop back 2 places more. Yet when Giuliano ALSO did the same thing at the same place, going from 6th to 10th, no penalty was assessed.

So to me, the biggest issue is the very apparent inconsistent application of the rules. Three riders, same mistake at the same place, three different outcomes: ride-thru, lose 2 places on track, no additional penalty.

On top of that, although Sykes did not directly gain an advantage - as in move up spaces - he DID gain an advantage over Guintoli because Sykes held him up when he re-entered. So Sykes lost ground on Melandri in 2nd, but he also caused Guintoli to lose ground as well.

The rule needs to be clear and simple: if you run off track at a chicane that has paved run-off areas, you must re-enter at least one place further back than where you were prior to running off. At the first chicane, this is accomplished with the barriers on that section of tarmac (which is actually part of the track in different configurations). At the second chicane where there are no barriers, they should just know to fall back at least one spot. If they don't, then force them back 2 spots, or impose a ride-thru. But as it was, there were 4 different results of basically the same event with 3 different applications of the rules. That, to me, is unacceptable.

I don't think losing a spot for a run off is the answer, certainly would be far from consistent. Next rider back could easily be several seconds or more behind...

I do think that something along the lines of re-entering the track at least 1 second (or some fixed variable) behind where you would have otherwise been is a fair penalty.

I think some form of penalty for running off needs to be present...like others have said, a typical run-off with dirt invokes its own natural penalty, a paved run-off needs to have a definite penalty, I just don't think a flat spot loss is the right or fair application of a penalty.

my .02 which is worth about 1/2 of face value

 

[Lucky Jones]

So what did Cluzel do? Run onto the grass to avoid the barriers?

I just got around to watching the races, and you can see him overshoot the chicane, go around the bales correctly, BUT, he didn't stay between the painted lines that designate the "re-entry" path, thus earning the ride-through.

Like in F1 auto racing, when the racers have to keep the car within the white lines when re-entering the track from the pits during the race.

 

[DaveT319]

I just got around to watching the races, and you can see him overshoot the chicane, go around the bales correctly, BUT, he didn't stay between the painted lines that designate the "re-entry" path, thus earning the ride-through.

Like in F1 auto racing, when the racers have to keep the car within the white lines when re-entering the track from the pits during the race.

Gotcha. Thanks for that.

 

[kevin 714]

in an interview today with GPone at motogp le mans, nakamoto said flat out honda is not coming back to wsbk. its just not happening. they are commited to motogp, working on the for sale racer for CRT teams, and will not do both.

guess those return with a badass v4 were far fetched rumors after all