ALMS
Long Beach: Highcroft Racing statement on penalty
PATRON HIGHCROFT RACING STATEMENT REGARDING IMSA LONG BEACH PENALTY DANBURY, CT, Thursday, April 30, 2009: Patron Highcroft Racing is appreciative to IMSA for the efforts applied to the post-event examination of the penalty received by the team ...
Published: Jun 19, 2009, 7:53 PM
Copy link
Share on Viber
PATRON HIGHCROFT RACING STATEMENT REGARDING IMSA LONG BEACH PENALTY
DANBURY, CT, Thursday, April 30, 2009: Patron Highcroft Racing is appreciative to IMSA for the efforts applied to the post-event examination of the penalty received by the team during the recent Tequila Patron American Le Mans Series event at Long Beach.
Our team's efforts to clarify the penalty were in no way meant to tarnish the victory by our sister Acura team at de Ferran Motorsport. We wish to congratulate them on their win and look forward to continuing our battle for the LMP1 championship at Salt Lake City.
In reply to the IMSA statement, Patron Highcroft Racing would like to point out:
* The team was alleged to have violated Art. 16.1.2.2 of the Standing Supplementary Regulations of the American Le Mans Series - stating Fire bottle person must wear "a full coverage helmet with face shield that is positioned down".
* Our fire bottle crew member was equipped with a motocross-style helmet with chin guard, fire retardant balaclava (head sock) and face shield goggles.
* Our fire bottle crew member had his goggles (face shield) in place during the Long Beach pit stop.
* The wording of Art 16.1.2.2. differs from that which is applied to refuellers from Art. 17.6.2 (b) "helmet with a closed visor" in regards the equipment required by "fuel attendants".
* Our refueller is equipped with a full-face helmet and fire retardant balaclava at every round of the American Le Mans Series including Long Beach.
* Our telemetry indicates our car was held in excess of the 20 second penalty applied.
Patron Highcroft Racing would like to thank the IMSA team for their efforts in investigating this matter and look forward to receiving information regarding any change in equipment tech inspection procedures and precise clarification regarding the difference between Art 16.1.2.2 and Art. 17.6.2 (b) in the near future.
-credit: phr
We want your opinion!
What would you like to see on Motorsport.com?
Take our 5 minute survey.
- The Motorsport.com Team
Read and post comments
Read also :
Share Or Save This Story
Copy link
Share on Viber
Previous article Long Beach: IMSA statement on Highcroft Racing protest
Next article Series GT3 Cup Challenge news 2009-04-30
Top Comments
There are no comments at the moment. Would you like to write one?
View More & Comment
Latest news
What's behind "absolute nonsense" Oliver Bearman contract rumours
Formula 1
F1 Formula 1
Mexican GP
2 min
What's behind "absolute nonsense" Oliver Bearman contract rumours
F1 Mexico GP: Follow FP2 with live timing
Formula 1
F1 Formula 1
Mexican GP
41 min
F1 Mexico GP: Follow FP2 with live timing
F1 Mexico GP: Charles Leclerc beats Kimi Antonelli to top FP1
Formula 1
F1 Formula 1
Mexican GP
2 h
F1 Mexico GP: Charles Leclerc beats Kimi Antonelli to top FP1
What Fernando Alonso is getting wrong about F1 driving standards
Formula 1
F1 Formula 1
Mexican GP
3 h
What Fernando Alonso is getting wrong about F1 driving standards
Subscribe and access Motorsport.com with your ad-blocker.
From Formula 1 to MotoGP we report straight from the paddock because we love our sport, just like you. In order to keep delivering our expert journalism, our website uses advertising. Still, we want to give you the opportunity to enjoy an ad-free and tracker-free website and to continue using your adblocker.
You have 2 options:
- Become a subscriber.
- Disable your adblocker.
Subscribe now Already subscribed? Sign in here
Already disabled your adblocker?
Reload page
Manage Alerts
Subscribe