Part 3: IMSA: Where you win and officials screw you out of it.
THE LAND SCENARIO
With the No.29 Land car, IMSA saw figures coming from the refueling tank that said it was taking less time to fill the car than was anticipated. Beyond the refueling flow rate trigger, teams had been informed by IMSA that it had an expectation for each GTD car to sit still for approximately 40 seconds during a full refueling stop.
After the same faster-than-expected phenomenon occurred at the first five stops, which gave the Audi a one lap and 80-second lead over second place, IMSA acted and applied the aforementioned stop-plus-five-minute penalty, which effectively ended its race.
"To measure refueling times, each entrant's autonomous fuel tank is fitted with a mandated IMSA fuel level sensor and refueling restrictor, which are inspected and sealed prior to the race," IMSA competition VP Simon Hodgson said in a statement after the penalty was handed down.
"During a standard in-race data review, IMSA observed a consistent and beneficial variance of the No. 29 car's refueling times compared to the GTD class average. Based on IMSA's current and past event refueling data, this was deemed to be unacceptable. The entrant was informed of IMSA's position and a penalty was administered."
With almost everyone outside IMSA's tech team oblivious to the reason behind the penalty when it was announced, the first inkling that it was related to the refueling tank came from pit lane.
"It means our refueling time is shorter than [IMSA] calculated," Land told IMSA Radio. "We are every time a bit quicker, but we follow the regulations. We are fine. IMSA has a calculated refueling time for our class, it's around 40 seconds, but we did nothing out of the regulations, but we are quicker than the calculated time so we are penalized five minutes."
A quick look at the timing and scoring information prior to the penalty shows the No.29 was, without question, the fastest GTD car from the time it crossed the pit-in beacon to when it crossed the pit-out beacon.
Using the GTD race-winning No.11 GRT Grasser Lamborghini (above) as the control, its first seven pit stops took between 1m27.3s and 1m33.1s. This accounts for driving the length of pit lane at 37.3mph, stopping, refueling and possibly changing tires and a driver, and then driving away and out at the same 37.3mph limit.
As Land reiterated, the refueling portion is, by IMSA's decree, expected to consume approximately 40 seconds of the overall time on pit lane.
The No.29, on its first seven visits, took between 1m13.0s to 1m22.7s. Even the Audi's slowest stop was almost five seconds faster than the best the winning Lamborghini could manage. Multiplied over those seven stops, the Land entry was killing the competition every time it drove away from its pit stall.
Other entries dipped into that sub-1m20s range, but only on rare occasion. In the case of Land Motorsport, its pit stops were significantly and consistently faster than the other GTD competitors, which was the exception, and IMSA took notice. After serving the penalty, and dealing with different issues, the No.29 Audi rallied to place seventh in class, three laps behind the GRT Huracan.
BUT WAS IT CORRECT?
Where the conversation takes an interesting twist is in the point raised during the race by Audi Sport.
Using the statement from IMSA's Hodgson, the series did not declare the No.29 had used an illegal refueling flow restrictor to achieve its faster-than-expected refueling speeds. To reinforce that notion, Land also said the correct 29.0mm restrictor was installed, Hodgson said each tank's restrictor was inspected and then sealed, which ensured compliance.
From both statements, we know that restrictor tampering was not the source of the infraction. It leaves the short refueling process as the main culprit, and that's where Audi zeroed in on a tough question for IMSA to answer.
If 40 seconds is the approximate time teams are meant to spend refueling, and taking less than 40 seconds on a regular basis is considered a violation, where in the rulebook – the one that so tightly governs every aspect of IMSA competition – does that 40-second rule exist? As Audi and Land rightfully argued, it can't be found in the rulebook because it isn't documented in print. "It's an unwritten goal," an IMSA spokesperson told RACER.
It's tricky situation to consider. Where the 29.0mm metal refueling restrictor is a hard, specific piece that can be measured and complied with by the Land team, the same can't be said for IMSA's verbal '40 second' rule. It begs the question of, if a rule isn't written, how can a team be in violation of IMSA's rulebook?
In a follow-up exchange, the same IMSA representative elaborated on their original statement.
"This penalty was called due to the unexpected observed performance of the fuel flow rates," they said. "And IMSA applied an appropriate penalty per the Sporting Regulations."
No one is questioning the speed advantage Land used to its benefit during those early pit stops. But it is worth asking if and when verbal rules should be considered valid when intricate rules are written into existence for use by each team and the series itself to govern its events. When teams can be penalized FOR BREACHING UNWRITTEN RULES, the outrage expressed by Audi and Land is easier to understand.
THE ACTUAL RULES
Although the specific '40-second/fuel flow rate' infraction does not exist in IMSA's rulebook, the series did cite the two rule numbers that allowed it to penalize the No.29 entry.
As supplied to RACER by IMSA, the first is Rule 2.1 from the BoP section: "In order to maintain competitive equivalency between Cars within each class and between classes, IMSA may, at its discretion, utilize an adjustment method during each season (BoP)."
The second, which is a catch-all, is found in 2.7: "...manipulates the performance, or displays a level of performance above or below the expected result in any Session may be penalized to the full extent listed in Art. 57."
Rule 2.7 is how IMSA opened the door to hit the Land Audi with its penalty. But it also relies on the same undefined 'expected results' phrasing that is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.
Last edited by senor honda; 02-06-2018 at 08:06 PM.