Stewards have released a full explanation of the case that engulfed Golding’s CoolDrive Mustang following the qualifying session.

Supercars officials measured the rear wing angle during post-session checks at 10.04 degrees – 0.04 outside the maximum angle.

BRT therefore faced a stewards hearing alleging it had broken Rule C1.1.3, relating to the Vehicle Specification and Engine Specification Documents

It states: “A Car must remain identical in all respects to the particular model of Car as defined in the relevant VSD and ESD except for the freedoms allowed, and to the extent permitted, by the Rules.”

However, retesting of the angle in the presence of stewards resulted in a readings of 10.00 degrees and 10.04 degrees, depending on the precise position of the measurement.

The stewards deemed that as the 10.00 degree reading was repeatable “using the prescribed tool and in accordance with the prescribed methodology”, no breach of the rules had taken place.

Golding went on to finish third in the race, one place behind teammate Aaron Cameron, with whom he’d shared the front-row.

Read the full stewards explanation below

The CTM (Category Technical Manager) alleged that when measured using the prescribed tool and using the prescribed method, the rear wing angle was 10.04 degrees, exceeding the maximum angle of 10.00 degrees specified in the Ford Mustang VSD.

The Team agreed that the CTM had measured the rear wing angle using the prescribed tool and in accordance with the prescribed method and agreed that the tool had recorded 10.04 degrees.

The method requires to the 0 datum to be set by placing the tool on a fixed point on the chassis and then the tool is placed at the mid point on the upper face of the horizontal element of the rear wing.

The Team explained that they had checked the rear wing angle before Practice 1 using the Supercars tool and it had measured below the maximum permitted angle.

The rear wing is mounted to the rear clip using homologated CNC fabricated supports. There was no suggestion that the supports and their mountings did not conform.

The Team could not explain why the measurement recorded by the CTM after the Qualifying Session differed from the measurement recorded earlier.

They explained, and the CTM agreed, that the horizontal element of the rear wing on Car 7 was fixed in the same position holes as that on the Team’s other Car, Car 3, and the wing angle on Car 3 was under the permitted maximum.

The CTM acknowledged that the highest of the fixed adjustment holes in the homologated components of the wing is intended by the design to limit the rear wing angle to a maximum of 10.00 degrees.

The Team speculated that the differential might be attributable to force having been applied to the rear of the car when it was pushed onto the scales or might be explained by movement in the approved fastenings of the wing supports.

They also contended that were they to move the wing to the next lower setting it would likely then be under the minimum permitted angle.

That if this were the case, then the wing angle could not conform either way despite the parts being in accordance with the requisite homologation.

This, they suggested, raised questions about the fairness of the VSD tolerances or the appropriateness of the measurement method.

The Team requested that the Stewards attend at the garage where Car 7 remained under parc ferme conditions to observe the test methodology and, if necessary, to test the adjustment tolerances.

The Stewards agreed and observed the CTM set the tool 0 position at the specified point on the chassis of Car 7 and then place the tool in the middle of the upper face of the rear wing horizontal element.

The angle recorded equated to 10.00 degrees precisely – at, but not in excess of, the permitted maximum.

When the tool was moved very slightly to a different position on the rear wing it recorded 10.04 degrees and when it was moved back to where the CTM had originally placed it, and also in similar positions in the same region, it consistently measured 10.00 degrees.

The CTM acknowledged that when the tool was seen to be recording 10.00 degrees it was being used in conformity with the prescribed methodology.

He could not explain why, when it was moved by only a few millimetres to a different position on the horizontal element but still in region of the mid-point of the upper face, it yielded a different reading.

The horizontal element is carbon composite and its depth and width and shape are not uniform across its length.

The Stewards were unable to determine whether the fact that the placement of the tool in a slightly different position yielded a different reading was attributable to an uneven surface not visible by eye or some other factor.

There was no suggestion that the horizontal element did not comply with the VSD.

The wing angle having been measured in the presence of the Stewards at 10.00 degrees using the prescribed tool and in accordance with the prescribed methodology and this measurement could be consistently repeated despite a different reading being recorded at a different position, the Stewards are not satisfied that any breach of the Rules is established.

The Stewards therefore determine to take no further action.