refueling on track?

like it really matters

 

Just out of curiousity.........
You say they lost 3.5 laps and the lead of the race. If the rules had not been broken, how much time would have been lost? 2 choices - wait for the crash truck or push the bike around the track (no shortcuts) and back to the pits. Either way, I'm betting they would have lost more than 4 minutes and 40 seconds (3 1/2 laps at 1:20 per lap which is is generous).

 

A month it took you to come up with this. man I'm glad you're on top of current events.

 

I gave my wife a 5th anniversary present yesterday and we've been married for 8 years. It's my nature.
If you think my response was slow, you should have seen me on the track. Now THAT was slow.
Now that we have that out of the way, does what I said make sense?

 

you sound like a prick that worked with a bunch or a -holes before,scratched fjr...!point well taken

 

big gas tank = not running out of gas,fuel mileage already being calculated=not running out of gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!adaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha!!!water over bridge right,who's gonna beat them any way!!may be some texas team

 

wow - shit stirring time was over months ago, but, my post was less than a month after the original? Wow - gotta act fast nowadays.
I was just askin a question. If I wanted to stir shit, I would have thrown in one of these
Do you still beleive that there was no advantage gained?

 

I don't know, as an outsider on this one I think he had a point. They screwed up, bigtime, and it only cost them 3.5 laps. If they'd have had to push it (i.e. not refuel on track) they certainly would have lost more laps than the 3.5 laps they did. Since there are mileage points as well as position points, this could definitely matter in the overall scheme of things. Take off 30 minutes of laps and the resulting mileage points and how do things stack up?

OK, Vesrah still kicks everyone's ass.

But I DO think he had a valid point. Certainly not one worth busting his balls over.

 

penalty was insufficient.

 

That's exactly what I thought when I read the descriptions.

As for a reason for going over it, Mongo, I see a very good reason to do so: you're not infallable and can, and do, make bad calls. Maybe this was one of them. Perhaps by bringing it up now, you'll have a chance to reflect on the points made and make a better decision in the future.

But, as always, you quickly label it "bitching" and dismiss it out of hand.

I've never raced endurance (yet ), so I have no vested interest in this either way. Some might even call me a totally impartial observer to the whole affair, since I don't give two shits how the whole thing shakes out, other than the overall concern that WERA gives EVERY competitor a fair shake, all the time, every time, without fail.

In this case, I think Worthless' showed that the punishment didn't fit the crime. They lost 3.5 laps instead of 20 or 30 or God knows how many. Apparently Hazbin, a former WERA National Endurance Champion if my memory serves me correctly, agreed.

From how you've framed it, this "no fueling on track rule" doesn't really exist because there's no penalty for violating it. The laps they lost were going to be history anyway, seeing as how the bike doesn't run on air alone, so that wasn't a penalty YOU imposed on them, it was one they imposed upon themselves by running out in the first place.

If I may make a suggestion, why not simply add a further clause to that rule. One to the effect of: bikes that run out of gas on the track must wait for the crash truck or be pushed back to the pits, at the discretion of the Race Director (corner worker calls it in). Now the penalty is self-enforcing and you don't have to worry about it and everyone knows what the ramifications are for running out of gas.

 

If every post on this BBS requires a point behind it, you're fingers are gonna get awfully tired with the delete key.

The point I was trying to make was that you said no advantage was gained and I was trying to explain how I felt there was, in fact, an advantage gained. I couldn't find anything in the rulebook regarding refueling on the track - just the requirements for a refueling stop. Perhaps a rule should be considered. Don't agree with me? Cool - you won't be the first.

 

that ruling was gay but ,i'm just a golfer chasing prize money now!