BRAD JONES RACING RESPONDS TO SLADE/WALSH DISQUALIFICATION
Brad Jones Racing release statement about Sandown 500 exclusion for Tim Slade and Ash Walsh – Photo: Supplied
Last weekends Sandown 500 was a disastrous event for the Brad Jones Racing team.
After Todd Hazelwood’s spectacular accident on the final lap of the co-driver qualifying race, Nick Percat and Macauley Jones suffered a broken rear end plate which saw them finish the opening enduro in 23rd place.
The highlight of the weekend was suppose to be the top ten finish of the No. 75 car, with Tim Slade and Ash Walsh crossing the line in ninth place. However, the duo were later excluded from the results after Supercars enforced a driving time rule.
The Steward’s Finding stated; “The Stewards find that the Rule D8.4.6.2 requires a driver must have an effective resting time of 54 actual laps (being 1/3rd scheduled race distance)”.
The Freightliner Racing Commodore of Tim Slade and Ash Walsh in action at the Sandown 500 – Photo: Supplied
The Brad Jones Racing team have since release a statement about their exclusion for the Sandown 500 results.
Brad Jones Racing Statement
BJR was charged with not complying with section 8.4.6.2 of this rule. BJR’s interpretation of this rule is as follows.
8.4.6.1: Two-thirds (2/3) of the scheduled race distance (161 laps) equals 107.3. So, no driver can do more than 107 laps out of 161.
- Walsh: Completed 86 laps. Complies with rule.
- Slade: Competed 39 laps. Complies with rule.
8.4.6.2: Each driver must effectively rest (not be driving the car) for one-third (1/3) of the scheduled race distance (161). So, each driver must be out of the car for more than 54 laps out of 161.
- Walsh: Effectively rested 75 of 161 laps. Complies with rule.
- Slade: Effectively rested 122 of 161 laps. Complies with rule.
8.4.6.3: Defines that all driving times are calculated off the laps detailed in the Supplementary Regulations (161 laps) regardless of the time certain finish (16:48 for Sandown).
The team are standing by the fact that nowhere in this rule is there reference to the ‘actual’ or ‘completed’ race distance. BJR feel the intent of the rule is so that teams can plan strategy on a defined race length, which is why the rule references on more than one occasion, the ‘scheduled race distance.’
Further to this, the team have discussed the rule in length and have agreed a team would find it near impossible to plan or complete a strategy guessing what the eventual race laps would be.
For example, another red flag or even more safety car laps would have shorten the 2017 race even further. So, if BJR had have pitted Walsh 54 laps before the end of the actual 125 laps, one more safety car period in Slade’s stint would have reduced the race by at least 1 lap, meaning he would not comply with 8.4.6.2 as interpreted by the Stewards. How are teams expected to predict the future?
Another example would have been if the red flag was at the other end of the race. Most teams would have driven their co-driver for two stints (82 laps) before swapping to their main driver (to achieve minimum race stops of 41 lap fuel stints). A shortened race to 125 laps would mean all these cars would have not complied with 8.4.6.2 as interpreted by the Stewards.
If the race above did happen, the Stewards would have the discretion to reduce the race distance. However, the teams that took the gamble or guessed that the race could be shortened may have run a compromised strategy to do so. If the stewards then reduce the race length after the fact, then this seems unfair to those teams. Hence, using ‘scheduled race distance’ is the only way teams can plan and execute strategy and why the wording is used extensively throughout the rule.
Brad Jones added “We are really disappointed at the weekends penalty for Tim & Ash. To appeal this decision was going to be $11,000 plus our costs and you have one hour to submit the paperwork to do this after the hearing. At that point, which was around 7.30pm on Sunday evening it is difficult to seek the correct legal advice. We felt that we would accept the decision that was made, even though it was a pretty bitter pill to swallow.”
“We’ve got a lot of work to do at BJR in the next couple of weeks, and I’m eager to put the Sandown weekend behind us. This has undoubtedly been one of the toughest seasons for us. If we can stand on the podium at Bathurst, it would be the ultimate reward for the team and all their efforts and hard work they’ve put in this year.”
We’ll have a full analysis of the all the action from Sandown in the next issue of Auto Action Magazine, on sale Thursday. Also make sure you follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or our weekly email newsletter for all the latest updates between issues.
