The stewards report has now explained in detail why there was no penalty – and it hinges on a successful argument from Dutton.
As the team’s representative, Dutton managed to dispute photo evidence from the deputy race director and an eye witness account from a Supercars official.
Ultimately, there was enough doubt in the evidence for it to be thrown out of the stewards office.
“The Stewards received a report from the DRD which was accompanied by video footage from Car 1’s judicial in-car camera.
“A still photograph had been taken from that video footage which shows the light indicator (blue) for the pit lane speed limiter was not illuminated and the derestriction line for the end of Pit Lane is visible. The DRD submitted that this was evidence that the pit lane speed limiter had been disengaged while the Car was still within the Pit Lane.
“The Competitor’s Authorised Representative, Mr Mark Dutton, contested that conclusion can be drawn from the photograph. He stated that the camera’s wide-angle lens does not accurately reflect the position of the Car and the status of the light for the pit lane speed limiter (whether it is illuminated or not) at that particular time.
“Further he indicated that from testing conducting in conjunction with Supercars previously demonstrated that there is not an accurate alignment of inputs into the MOTEC system between the auxiliary inputs for signals such as the pit lane speed limiter activation together with the high-definition vision from the camera, such that it is not reflective of the accurate situation.
“At the request of the Stewards, the DRD called [a member of] Supercars Technical, by phone to ask about the accuracy of Mr Dutton’s submission. [That person] indicated that [they were] not working at Supercars at the time those tests were undertaken and so could not comment about that.
“The Stewards asked [them] whether the MOTEC data could verify the position of the Car when the pit lane speed limiter was deactivated. [They] responded that [they] could not with confidence state the position of the car as the beam in operation at the event was not that accurate.
“[They] indicated that a Supercars official was stationed at Pit Exit and witnessed the incident and reported it to [them] and that [he] was available if we wished to speak with him. [They] handed [their] phone to [him]. [He] stated that he was stationed at Pit Exit and witnessed Car 1 exiting the Pit Lane and
believed that it deactivated its pit lane speed limiter prior to crossing the derestriction line for Pit Exit.
“He indicated the position of the Car was still 1 to 1.5 metres inside the Pit Lane when this happened. He indicated that he heard the pitch of the engine change, and the Car accelerate to a speed greater than other cars exiting pit lane during the race.
“Mr Dutton questioned [him] as to whether he could see the external speed limiter light at the time that he said he observed the car to accelerate. [He] stated he could not see the external light where he was standing as he was on the opposite of the Car.
“Mr Dutton submitted to the Stewards that the Car was accelerating in any event because it was the last Pit Bay in the Pit Lane and at that speed (11 metres per second at 40kp/m) it is difficult for any person to accurately judge exactly where a car is positioned at any specific time.
“He submitted that in the case, [the official] could have been mistaken where Car 1 was when the limiter was deactivated.
“Having considered the matter extensively; the Stewards find that the breach of the Rule has not been established on the evidence presented and decide to take no further action.
“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.”
Discussion about this post