Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 6:28 PM - M. Krejčí

B. Labancz breaches article 2(1)1

---

Penalties

B. Labancz - Warning

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 6:39 PM - M. Krejčí

This is a racing incident with both drivers being at fault. J. Teager steers unpredictably to the left leaving M. Heeley little time to react. Heeley however could have done more by braking or using the available space to the left.

---

Appealed - 06/28/2023 9:53 PM - J. Teager

I am appealing this as this is an incorrect decision. According to the rule book article 6 section 7 that states:" (7) 1 Drivers must be aware of cars around them, anticipate their action and be prepared to act accordingly. ² Compliance with Sentence 1 is assumed if inputs that suggest anticipative driving, such as lifting off the throttle pedal ahead of time, are present. ³Sentence 1 does not apply when the other car breaches the regulations.3)" With this in mind I am racing another car into Turn 1 leaving enough space for both of us to make it through an race fairly. Shortly after this the track tightens forcing me onto the curb unsettling the car causing me to have to take corrective action to straighten up and regain control. After control is regained and the person I was racing got ahead I continued back onto my racing line. The driver behind being Heeley should have been aware of the battle in front and seeing my car get unsettled from the curb that this wasn't an opportunity to pass but to make sure that he did not collide with either driver in front. If you check from my in car view for the whole duration you will see that no "sudden turn to the left' Is initiated but only to regain control after hitting the curb. Watching Heeleys on board you will see that he does notice me unsettled and lifts but doesn't brake and causes a collision which is wholly avoidable. As such this is NOT a racing incident but at minimum a minor racing indicent as stated here under penalties: "A minor disadvantage generally occurs when a driver only loses a position to the offending car, takes minimal damage, does not lose control of the car, or loses less than four seconds of time"

---

Appeal decision - 07/03/2023 6:42 PM - M. Krejčí

"The driver behind being Heeley should have been aware of the battle in front and seeing my car get unsettled from the curb that this wasn't an opportunity to pass but to make sure that he did not collide with either driver in front."

A car ahead getting unsettled does not prohibit the driver behind to attempt an overtake. In this case from M. Heeleys onboard, J. Teager appeared to be relatively in control apart from a minor slide he experienced on the right hand side of the track, which easily left enough room on the left hand side to attempt an overtake. Nothing suggested that either car ahead of Heeley was out of control so badly that an overtake attempt would be unwise.

"After control is regained and the person I was racing got ahead I continued back onto my racing line."

J. Teager does not follow the more conventional racing line which opens up the next corner by going right, nor does he follow his usual line where he opens up the corner a little bit by using about 2/3 of the track width before braking for the left hander. Instead he cuts to the inside. The following album shows his car's position just before the hit compared to its position on each of the previous 4 laps: https://imgur.com/a/A17KPJy

"If you check from my in car view for the whole duration you will see that no "sudden turn to the left' Is initiated but only to regain control after hitting the curb."

https://imgur.com/a/p9ls5m5

J. Teager fully regains control latest at 0:19.1 on his racelogic. Immediately after that, he initiates a sharp turn to the left (picture at 0:19.4) which significantly alters his trajectory through the left hand kink. 

As a result of Teager's tight line and slide, M. Heeley is approaching the scene with significant overspeed of about 20 km/h, closing the gap quickly. Since the "sudden turn" clearly occurs while the car is under control and it takes J. Teager off his usual racing line, it has to be judged either as a reactive movement or as an ovverreaction to the oversteer moment before.

Regardless t is an unpredictable action that directly forces another driver to take an avoiding action, specifically to brake.

"Watching Heeleys on board you will see that he does notice me unsettled and lifts but doesn't brake and causes a collision which is wholly avoidable"

M. Heeley clearly has a window to take an avoiding action, as is proven by him lifting off. By braking he could have either avoided the colision entirely or at least mitigate the consequences. This is the reason M. Heeley is deemed partially at fault for the collision.

In summary: J. Teager exhibits unpredictable behaviour that forces another driver to take a significant avoiding action (specifically braking). M. Heeley causes or contributes to a collision by taking an insufficient avoiding action. Rather than penalize both drivers, we feel it's better to penalize neither.

Original ruling upheld, token consumed

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 6:42 PM - M. Krejčí

K. Wrightson breaches article 2(1)1

Retroactive TP10 to K. Wrightson.

---

Penalties

K. Wrightson - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 6:49 PM - M. Krejčí

Racing incident. M. Heeley holds brakes and gets the car under control while J. Teager has enough time to react.

---

Appealed - 06/28/2023 10:24 PM - J. Teager

I am appealing this incident based off the ground of Article 6 section 4 here: "(4) 1 On loss of control the driver is obligated to bring the car to a standstill as quickly as possible, ideally by applying the brakes for the entire duration of the incident and afterwards. ² When a car is brought to a standstill, the driver may not move the car unless the track is completely clear, and the driver does not impede2) any other car. ³ Applying the throttle either partly or fully during or after losing control of the car that results in a partial or full spin (beyblading) is especially prohibited." If you watch the onboard of Heeley you will see that he doesn't apply the brake through 2/3s of incident. He hits the curb, loses control of the car, veers off track then continues to apply the throttle until he realises he has fully lost control and will hit the oncoming vehicle (being me) then he applies brake which is too late causing an major incident due to an unsafe rejoin. My car after this servery damaged and had multiple flat spotted tyres causing the rest of the race to be hell with my wheel vibrating all over the place. At minimum this should be a Moderate disadvantage as stated here under Penalties: "A moderate disadvantage generally occurs when a driver loses between two to eight positions, takes moderate damage, is pushed off the track and has to yield to other cars or loses control of the car (e.g. is spun around) or loses between four and fifteen seconds of time."

---

Appeal decision - 07/03/2023 7:49 PM - M. Krejčí

M. Heeley arguably never fully loses control of the car, applies a small amount of throttle to keep the car heading the right way and fully applies the brakes about 1 second after he leaves the track when it becomes clear his trajectory is taking him back onto the track. It is not necessarily mandatory to apply brakes as soon the car leaves the track.

J. Teager has more than 2 seconds to react between Heeley leaving the track and the collision, but never makes an attempt to avoid the collision, uses all the track width on exit and continues at full throttle until the collision. The stewards argue that the collision could have been avoided by applying brakes, lifting off or keeping to the right. Since no attempt to avoid was made, Heeley cannot be deemed predominantly at fault for the collison. 

Original ruling upheld, token returned.

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 7:02 PM - M. Krejčí

This is a racing incident. No one driver is predominantly at fault.

J. Teager breaches article 6(4)2 upon rejoin

---

Penalties

J. Teager - Warning

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 7:07 PM - M. Krejčí

S. Lusenc breaches article 2(1)1

Retroactive TP15 to S. Lusenc

---

Penalties

S. Lusenc - 3 BWP - P: 15 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 7:13 PM - M. Krejčí

T. Van Zanten breaches article 2(1)1

Next race TP10 for T. Van Zanten (did not finish race)

---

Appealed - 06/28/2023 9:16 PM - T. Van Zanten

I would like to make it clear that I am writing this appeal based on the 8.2 version of the rulebook, under which the event in question was run First off, I find it very dissapointing that the stewards did not write a explaination for their ruling, and simply wrote down the verdict My onboard on the matter is very clear: there is no malicious intend from my end. Article 7.2 states very clearly that drivers must leave eachother space on corner entry, on the side of which overlap occurs. Which in this situation is on my left. By contrary, Ruijzendaal turns much sharper to the right, reducing the space to his right. As I stay far to the right, my car becomes slightly unsetteld hitting the kerb and drifts to the left. I respond by lifting of the throttle, to catch the slide. Article 7.2 no longer applies for this situation from that point onward as both cars are now exiting the corner. At this point, contact between the cars is made, which is allowed under 6.2. Furthermore, 6.3 is not breached either as the contact does not push Ruijzendaal of the track Upon contact, Ruijzendaal pushes the rear of my car to the right, almost creating a pit manouvre. I respond by lifting off the throttle for a second time in a short space of time, to prevent spinning out. At this stage Ruijzendaal sees, or must be aware of the sausage kerb ahead of him. He has three choices: Brake, do nothing, accelerate. He decides to do a combination of the three, causing him to not slow down at all. Finally, he decides to apply the throttle, causing his car to oversteer. If Ruijzendaal simply had not accelerated, he would not have hit the sausage kerb. I also want to add that ACC's colision physics cause th

---

Appeal decision - 07/03/2023 8:49 PM - M. Krejčí

Here's article 7(2) for reference: When entering a corner side-by-side, drivers must leave at least one car’s width of space between themselves and the track limits of the circuit on the side where the overlap occurs

The words "When entering a corner side-by-side" refer to a condition that needs to be fulfilled in order for this article to apply, not the span during which it applies. Drivers are reminded that if they entered a corner side-by-side, they do indeed need to leave at least one car’s width of space  even mid-way through the corner.

Since most of the appeal hinges upon this misunderstanding, the original ruling is upheld.

Given the difficulty of the situation he's put into, P. Ruijzendaal's reaction after the hit is considered reasonable by the stewards. 

Original ruling upheld, token is returned.

Penalties

T. Van Zanten - 2 BWP - P: 10 seconds time penalty

Verdict decision - 06/28/2023 7:29 PM - M. Krejčí

K. Cahnbley breaches article 2(1)1 and later contributes to T. Jack being spun around.

M. Heeley breaches article 6(4)1 and contributes to T. Jack being spun around.

Next race DT to K. Cahnbley.

Retroactive TP5 to M. Heeley

---

Penalties

K. Cahnbley - P: Drive through
M. Heeley - 1 BWP - P: 5 seconds time penalty