Shop
The Erebus Motorsport driver was on his cool down lap and speaking to the television commentators when he flashed his lights in a jocular bid to distract Brown, who was just about to start his hot lap.
As it turns out, Triple Eight Race Engineering requested an investigation into the matter, with Kostecki investigated for a potential breach of the following rule in the Supercars Operations Manual: D6.3.7.6 (c) The Driver [after the Car has been shown the chequered flag at the end of its timed lap] must not interfere with, baulk or cause obstruction to any other Car which may be on the Race Track at the same time.
Stewards ultimately decided to take No Further Action, but recommended that the Race Director take steps to prevent a repeat by ensuring cars are adequately spaced on relatively short track such as Hidden Valley.
See below for full stewards report
EARLIER REPORT: Brown laughs off Kostecki shootout gamesmanship
STEWARDS DECISION 62
Document: 19
2024 REPCO SUPERCARS CHAMPIONSHIP RACES 11 & 12
“BETR DARWIN TRIPLE CROWN”
Hidden Valley Raceway, Darwin, Northern Territory
12th to 16th June 2024
The Stewards, having received a report from the Deputy Race Director, having summoned and heard from the Drivers of Car 1 and Car 87 and the Authorised Representatives and having reviewed broadcast and judicial camera footage and telemetry from Cars 87 and 88 determined the following:
Competitor Car 1 Erebus Motorsport Pty Ltd
Car and Driver Car 1 Brodie Kostecki
Date Sunday, 16 June 2024
Session Top Ten Shootout – Race 12
Fact As Car 1 was on its cool down lap and Car 87 was on its preparation lap, the Driver of Car 1 was heard to say words to the effect “I might just drive onto the back of him, flash my lights… Yeah, try to distract him [laughter]“ and broadcast footage showed Car 1 flashing its headlights.
Rule D6.3.7.6 (c) The Driver [after the Car has been shown the chequered flag at the end of its timed lap] must not interfere with, baulk or cause obstruction to any other Car which may be on the Race Track at the same time.
Decision No Further Action
Reason Following the Session Triple Eight Race Engineering lodged a formal Request for Investigation with the DRD alleging that Car 1 had “crowded Car 87 on its cool down lap and [the Driver of Car 1] had admitted [on broadcast] to planning on interfering with Car 87”. The Stewards summoned the Teams and Drivers to investigate the allegation.
At the commencement of the hearing the Driver of Car 87 said that nothing that he had seen Car 1 do had affected his push lap in any way. He agreed that nothing that Car 1 had done had interfered his push lap or his preparation lap, nor had it baulked him or caused any obstruction to his Car. The correspondence of the telemetry from Cars 87 and 88 (the Pole Car) of their end of their preparation laps and their speed at the commencement of timing of their push laps and at the entry to Turn 1 was consistent with these concessions. Given these acknowledgments, no breach of Rule D6.3.7.6(c) by the Driver of Car 1 could be established.
The Driver of Car 1 acknowledged that it was unnecessary for him to have flashed his lights at Car 87 and he had done so during a post push lap Car to TV interview because he thought it would be “entertaining”. He said that he kept what he considered to be a reasonable gap behind Car 87 but doing so was difficult in the circumstances because he needed to preserve his tyres to use in the Race and that meant that he needed to maintain a sufficient speed on his cool down lap to avoid picking up dirt on his tyres. He said that Car 87 had been released to commence its preparation lap when there was only a short time remaining on Car 1’s push lap such that it was inevitable that Car 1 would catch Car 87 when Car 1 was finishing its cool down lap and Car 87 was approaching the end of its preparation lap. The Driver of Car 87 agreed that the interval between Cars in the TTSO at this Event appeared too short given the short lap time at this circuit.
The Authorised Representative of Car 87 submitted that in other circumstances behaviour like that of the Driver of Car 1 could cause issues for Cars on their preparation lap and it should not be condoned or encouraged.
Having reviewed Car 1’s judicial camera footage and on-board camera telemetry, we do not consider that Car 1 drove at any point so close to the rear of Car 87 to create any potential for interference.
However, given that the Drivers of both Cars (and their Authorised Representatives) were agreed that at this circuit the interval between Cars in the TTSO can be too tight, we recommend that the Race Director consider that on short circuits where a TTSO is programmed and when Cars are being released when another Car is on a push lap, the release point be adjusted to mitigate the risk of Cars on a cool down lap catching a car on a preparation lap. We also recommend that the Race Director consider giving an instruction to all Drivers on cool down laps to not be within a specified minimum distance of the Car ahead on its preparation lap.
The Competitor is reminded that Decisions and Penalties that may be subject to Appeal are set out in B7.7.2 and the Rights to and process for an Appeal are set out in B5.
DATE: 16 June 2024 TIME: 1430hrs
