I saw that on Motorsport last night or this morning. It seems like going under the minimum tire pressure could give a not-insignificant performance advantage. What was the motivation from IMSA for not DQing the car?
Photography Credit: Chris Tropea
More than a month after the Rolex 24 concluded, IMSA announced it had penalized the race-winning No. 60 Meyer Shank Racing Acura. What was the violation? The “potential manipulation of tire pressure data.”
To be specific, “Per Attachment 3.6.6.D, intentional application of software offsets within the pressures being reported by the tire pressure monitoring system and associated Car telemetry system is prohibited and may be subject to penalty.”
How did officials discover the issue? Honda Performance Development (HPD) reported it to IMSA after the official results were released.
“No changes will be made to the official race results,” IMSA said in a press release. “The No. 60 team and drivers retain credit for the race victory, trophy, and race-winner watches. All other teams and drivers will retain the points and prizes commensurate with their finishing positions as shown on the official race results. There also will be no change to GTP manufacturer points.”
So, how did IMSA penalize Meyer Shank Racing?
I saw that on Motorsport last night or this morning. It seems like going under the minimum tire pressure could give a not-insignificant performance advantage. What was the motivation from IMSA for not DQing the car?
In reply to wae :
That could be a factor.
I was just discussing this with J.A., and we both agreed that it seems like HPD caught the discrepancy, and, wanting nothing to do with the shenanigans, reported it to IMSA.
Certainly seems like the guilty parties got thrown under the bus.
pretty serious penalty for the race engineer.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:pretty serious penalty for the race engineer.
I agree. Indefinite suspensions are fairly rare in professional motorsport.
wae said:I saw that on Motorsport last night or this morning. It seems like going under the minimum tire pressure could give a not-insignificant performance advantage. What was the motivation from IMSA for not DQing the car?
I'm speculating that it was because the official race results were set when they discovered the infraction.
Didn’t NASCAR just recently disqualify its first Cup winner in like 60+ years?
David S. Wallens said:Didn’t NASCAR just recently disqualify its first Cup winner in like 60+ years?
Yes, right after the Pocono race last year, both Joe Gibbs Racing cars, which finished one-two (Hamlin and Kyle Busch), were disqualified for added material to the front fascia. This was discovered immediately during post-race tech, though.
There is a certain "safety" aspect to this story. Back when Continental/Hoosier was the major tire supplier there was talk of trying to set a max speed record on the high banks with a prototype. The problem that developed was they couldn't cheaply (for just one project) build a right rear tire that could withstand the forces that the engineers projected.
Lowering pressure might improve cornering in cold weather by helping create more heat in the carcass.
I suspect that the current tire manufacturer has set a lower limit for air pressure to prevent tire failures at speed. But, then again, I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.
This is almost as bad as the Altima in Champcar with the sticker "stock is best" being caught with a stroker motor.
The bigger problem is messing with the data. Hopefully the suspension discourages any other race engineer from doing that.
In reply to Purple Frog (Forum Supporter) :
I forgot what year it was, but the right rears were having blowouts and teams were openly blaming Continental. I'm sure Michelin sets minimum pressures because they don't want any of that.
Displaying 1-10 of 14 commentsView all comments on the GRM forums
You'll need to log in to post.
