DJR protested a decision from Supercars not to press through changes to the Ford engine package without GM’s approval.

The protest was based on a report from Supercars itself which outlines that the Ford engine is at a deficit to the GM V8 at Bathurst altitude.

The protest was lodged and a hearing held shortly before Ford Mustangs locked out the first two rows of the grid for tomorrow’s Bathurst 1000.

Motorsport Australia has since dismissed the protest.

Here is the full statement from the stewards.

PROTEST lodged by
The Competitor, Racing Team (Aust) Pty Ltd, of Cars 17 & 38

Against
An alleged breach by V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd of Rule A1.4.5 (Technical Parity) of the 2025 Supercars Operations Manual (“Rules”).

Procedure:

1. At 11:20hrs on Saturday 11 October 2025, the Chair of the Stewards received from the Competitor’s Authorised Representative a protest form, completed on a Form 8. Notice of Protest form. The Notice of Protest form was dated and signed. Accompanying the form was a 10-page submission document and a copy of an 8-page report titled “Low Inlet (Barometric) Pressure Testing Interim Report” bearing a date of 9 October 2025 (“Testing Report”).

2. The Notice of Protest form contained details for payment of the Protest Fee ($4,400 inclusive of GST) by credit card, which was processed by Motorsport Australia before commencement of the Hearing.

3. The Competitor’s Protest Form states in the Details of Protest section of the form:

“The subject of this Protest is the lack of fairness arising from the decision-making process and failure to implement an engine parity adjustment in the 2025 Repco Bathurst 1000, resulting in a known performance disparity between the Ford and GM engines.”

4. The Competitor and Concerned Party were summoned to attend a Stewards’ Hearing.

5. All parties were heard together by the Stewards.

Parties present at the Hearing:

6. The Hearing was held at 15:00hrs on Saturday 11 October 2025 in the Stewards’ room with all Stewards present.

7. The following other persons were present at the Hearing:

On behalf of the Competitor, Racing Team (Aust) Pty Ltd (“Protestor”):

Mark Fenning – Authorised Representative
Paul Riordan – Assistant to the Authorised Representative

On behalf of the V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd (“Concerned Party”):

Tim Holden – Chief Legal Officer & Company Secretary
Tim Edwards – General Manager of Motorsport

8. No objections were raised against the composition of the Stewards panel.

9. The Protestor’s Authorised Representative requested permission for Mr Riordan to assist him at the
Hearing. No objection was raised to this request.

10. The Protestor queried if as the Concerned Party was being represented by a legally qualified person whether it too could be legally represented. The Stewards noted that the Rules do not allow a Competitor to be legally represented at a Hearing and as the Concerned Party is not a Competitor and does not have an Authorised Representative (appointed under the Rules), the next appropriate person is the Company Secretary (who held a written delegation from the CEO to appear on his behalf).

11. The Parties indicated that they were ready to proceed with the Protest.

On the Admissibility:

12. The Stewards examined the admissibility of the protest.

13. The Protest Form was completed on the correct form and was accompanied by means of payment, which has been honoured.

14. The Stewards asked the Protestor to clarify its protest.

15. The Protestor submitted that the subject of the Protest (as referred to above) falls within the right to protest under either Article 13.2.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code (“ISC”) or Rule B4.1 (Right to Protest) for the following reasons:

a. Their protest amounts to allegations of a breach by V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd of Rule A1.4.5 (Technical Parity).

b. The breach (if proved) amounts to an alleged error, irregularity or breach of the regulationsoccurring during a Competition (which is allowed under Art 13.2.1 of the ISC).

c. The alleged breach is an ongoing breach that has been occurring in each Session of the Event held so far and specifically the Protest was lodged within 30 minutes after the conclusion of Practice 5 (i.e. even before the Provisional Classification for that Session had been issued) and so the Protest was lodged within the required time.

16. The Stewards asked the Concerned Party to respond.

17. Mr Holden responded on behalf of the Concerned Party by submitting that the Protest is inadmissible for the following reasons:

a. it is not admitted that a protest can be lodged by a Competitor against V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd.

b. the alleged breach is not a matter that falls within the framework of the ISC or the Rules and so the Stewards have no jurisdiction to enter the Protest; and

c. the correct forum is in another place (a court etc).

18. The Stewards noted the submissions accompanying the Protestor’s submissions refers to the Teams Racing Charter (“TRC”) and noted that this is not a document that is within the Stewards’ possession as it is not within the sporting and technical regulations for the Event. The Stewards stated they understand the document is a contractual agreement between V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd and the entities owning the various teams competing in the Supercars Championship. The Stewards asked if there are any provisions in that agreement containing dispute resolution procedures to be undertaken.

19. The Parties acknowledged that the TRC is not a document in the Stewards’ possession. Mr Holden confirmed that there are dispute resolution provisions within the TRC and stated that those have not been activated by the Protestor. The Protestor did not challenge this statement.

20. The Stewards asked the Protestor to clarify what relief it seeks (assuming the protest is admissible and upheld).

21. The Protestor stated the relief sought would be an order or direction from the Stewards requiring the Concerned Party to allow it (and presumably other Teams with the same engine) to make adjustments to their engine(s) at the Event in line with the recommendations made in the Testing Report to overcome a possible misaligned engine parity.

22. The Stewards invited the parties to make any further submissions about the admissibility of the
Protest. No additional submissions were received.

After the Hearing was closed by the Chair at 15:30hrs, the Stewards took the following decision after due deliberation.

Decision

1. The protest is inadmissible.

2. The protest is dismissed.

3. The protest fee NOT to be returned to the Protestor (see Rule B4.3.3)

Reasons
1. The Protest, as clarified and confirmed by the Protestor in the Hearing, is based on an allegation that V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd has failed to act on a recommendation to allow adjustments to be made to the Protestor’s engine(s) to achieve engine parity. This is an alleged breach of Rule A1.4.5. The relief it seeks is for the Stewards to make an order or direction that V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd allows that to happen at this Event.

2. We have had regard to Article 11.9 of the ISC (Authority of the Stewards) more specifically to the allowable powers granted in Article 11.9.3 as well as the analogous provisions in Rule A9.2.4 of the Operations Manual.

We consider that the relief sought by the Protestor is not within the Authority or allowable powers of the Stewards under those provisions.

3. So, even if the alleged breach is one that falls with the ambit of the right to protest under Article 13 of the ISC or the analogous provision in B4.4 of the Operations Manual (which we do not accept it is), and even if the alleged breach of the Rules is proved (which make no finding about), we consider that the relief sought by the Protestor is beyond the powers of the Stewards to grant and for this reason itself is good reason to deem the protest inadmissible.

4. As noted earlier, the parties to this Protest are parties to a contractual agreement outside the scope of the sporting and technical regulations for this Championship and Event (i.e. the TRC) which governs the relationship of the parties for how the Category is to be managed and administered (including as to parity). The parties confirmed that there are dispute resolution provisions in that agreement that have not yet been activated. The Stewards consider this is the correct mechanism for the Protestor to seek the relief it desires.

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.