analogmike

I read from one of the teams that they used the exact restrictor that IMSA told them to run, but that it was never tested before the race so it was an unknown. I don't see how they could be penalized for using what IMSA told them to use... if this is true, I don't know...

Carrera51

It says that in the article Streak posted. Said IMSA approved the restrictor which was used in GT3 in Europe since there would not have been enough time to make and test another one. I wonder if there could be more to the story.

Streak

This is puzzling. It would seem that if IMSA would have told them to use that restricter based on data from other Lambos using that restricter. I can't imagine that IMSA would just pull it out of thin air. So IMSA must have surmised from the other series that the Lambo would be brought into compliance with that restricter.

So even with that the Lambos were too fast. Does that mean something else was going on with the American spec cars?

Circuit Motorsports

This. There must be a lot of politics at play. Daytona is a horrible place to judge balancing on and this reeks like another mfr got really pissed off and forced IMSA to hit Lambo hard.

lordpantsington

From http://www.racer.com/imsa/item/12635...-24-violations

Streak

Even more interestinger

Even more intersting is that they passed pre and post race tech. Think an official was bought off?

That's the rumor I'm starting!

Carrera51

If the IMSA officials accidentally approved the old Audi restrictor, then that was there mistake.

Ritter v4.0

If Lamborghini used IMSA approved restrictors they have plausible deniability, but they must have known that Audi and IMSA had issues over them and that they were taking a risk.

Then running + 1 second faster than the field when off the podium was clearly ill advised.

Just came across this- if true, an interesting strategy:

"There was a rumor at the race that everyone knew that the Lamborghinis were way faster than they let on beforehand and their intention was to win by so much that the penalties wouldn't make them lose the race. That obviously didn't pan out."

The Brewmeister

This issue is far from over, here's Lamboghini's side of the story.

http://sportscar365.com/imsa/iwsc/la...ex-24-penalty/

Lamborghini has stated that all five of its customer Huracan GT3s that took part in last month’s Rolex 24 at Daytona complied with IMSA’s technical regulations and respected the sanctioning body’s Balance of Performance process.

The Italian manufacturer and its GT Daytona customer teams were penalized on Monday for what IMSA has deemed to be a performance advantage in the WeatherTech SportsCar Championship season-opener, which saw the V10-powered GT3 machines noticeably quicker than the competition in the race.

It has resulted in all Huracan GT3s behind given a post-race penalty of five minutes, as well as Lamborghini losing all championship points from the opening round, as well as facing a $25,000 fine.

According to the manufacturer, all five cars passed pre and post-race technical inspection, with Lamborghini having worked with IMSA to achieve the car’s BoP with dyno testing prior to the Roar Before the Rolex 24, as well as providing data.

Giorgio Sanna, Head of Lamborghini Motorsport, has called for IMSA to comply closer to the FIA’s BoP process, which has been recognized as the worldwide standard for GT3 cars.

“Lamborghini Squadra Corse has always collaborated with IMSA with maximum transparency, in order to achieve a right BoP,” Sanna said in a statement.

“We are and will be available for IMSA technicians to achieve the performance required by IMSA. However, we hope more FIA components and technical parameters will be used in the future to ensure a right BoP.”

It’s understood the issue at Daytona stemmed from the type of air restrictor used on the cars, which allegedly gave the Huracan GT3s a performance advantage in the race. The cars had passed pre and post-race tech with its allocated air restrictor.

Six Huracan GT3s are expected to take part in next month’s Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring, with IMSA yet to declare the car’s BoP.

NaroEscape

This absolutely pisses me off about IMSA - 1) OK, you passed inspections, but you were faster than everyone else so I guess we missed something...we don't know what, but you must have been cheating so we're penalizing you at random and 2)...and since we couldn't figure out what you did wrong, we can't figure out how to BoP your car and, yeah, I know there's testing going on, but we'll wait until the last minute to tell you (or not) then you'll have no time to test and optimize your car.

Oh...and if you're still fast? We'll penalize you again for no apparent reason...cause, you know, we can't have innovation going on here....

"Welcome to NASCAR Sportscar Racing, where we arbitrarily enforce the rules, make them up as we go along, stifle creative innovation, and try to dumb down every car to the lowest common denominator"

Cory M

It won't be the first time cars that pass tech inspection at the track are penalized based on engine dyno runs taken after the race. The same thing happened to Ganassi a few years back when they had BMW engines. The Dinan-built engines met all of the requirements and the letter of the law, but produced ~10 horsepower more than some unwritten gentleman's agreement. The team was penalized: Ganassi was fined $15k, they lost team and driver points, and they were given a 75lb weight penalty. Basically the same situation we are seeing with the Lambos, except the Lambo power advantage was up to 40hp by some accounts. It's better for the championship that the Lambo teams were penalized and adjusted after just one race. When Ganassi was penalized it was halfway through the season and they already had 5 wins. This isn't uncharted territory..

Carrera51

Why is it that we can't seem to get sports car racing right in the U.S? The car passed pre and post race tech. IMSA looks foolish the way this is being handled, unless there is more to the story than what we are all reading in the press. If they goofed and missed something, make the adjustment for Sebring and move on. Good grief...

PPo

I agree with VRaptor... but something seems funny here. If Lambo didn't cheat, than they where clearly sandbagging, and like Dave said, somebody was being a moron to suggest they go full out and set fastest lap.

But if Lambo did cheat, they would be even more stupid to show their hand when they did. So that means somebody was being an even bigger moron.

So it looks like either way somebody at Lambo is either a moron, or a big moron.

The fact remains, the Lambo's did not drive as fast as they could for the duration of the race, and nobody at Lambo has addressed that as being part of the strategy or something else. Which seems really odd.

Sounds like they are guilty...

winders

Of course they cheated. They used an "improper" air restrictor that Audi had used previously but were told to not use again. This wasn't a case of sandbagging. The BoP data provided to IMSA had to have been based on another restrictor or the data provided was just plain wrong. either way, blatant cheating which is why the penalty was so severe (lost all Manufacturer points).

NaroEscape

Still gotta disagree. I don't think they were "clearly" sandbagging. They were given/told to use a restrictor, it was approved, they used it. Were they fast? Yes. But if you used all approved stuff, why would you drive slow? Why would you think you would be penalized for the CURRENT race if you passed pre-tech? Future BoP adjustments? sure. But..isn't the goal to WIN the race? Not just drive around saying "well, we have a fast car, but we need to drive 8/10 and lose so we don't get penalized for the race we're in"...

Talked to one of the race teams..the ONLY reason they are not putting up a bigger fight is that it really didn't affect their finishing position. But...they are now questioning the the whole idea of even racing in IMSA... If they win a race, how do they know that IMSA won't come back with some penalty that they could never foresee? The term "Mickey Mouse organization" came up more than once in the conversation...