Steward's Decisions: 2009, Event 8 : Zolder

DateSeriesNumberConcerningDescription
October 25th 2009 17:50FIAGT16 Pekaracing NV / Vitaphone Racing Team DHL

The Stewards have received a protest from Pekaracing (car 4) against car 33 (Vitaphone Racing Team DHL) alleging a breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code that the car started the race with no success ballast.

The success ballast weights are published at 19:05 on 19th October 2009. The protestors also claim historic incidents in the 3 previous rounds to Zolder but made no protest at any of these rounds.  Such protests should have been made within 30 minutes in according with the I.S.C

After hearing from both Team Managers and accepting that the weight list is correct decline the protest.

October 25th 2009 19:43FIAGT17 Pekaracing / Vitaphone Racing

The Stewards have received a protest from Pekaracing (car 4) against car 1 (Vitaphone Racing) claiming that in the second pit stop more than the allowed number of mechanics were in the working area.

After hearing from both Team Managers and viewing the recording of the TV transmission the Stewards decide that more than the correct number of mechanics were in the working area during refuelling contrary to article 104 of the Sporting Regulations of the FIA GT 1009 and decide

To impose a drive through penalty which converts to a 30 second time penalty . The protest fee has to be returned

 

December 7th 2009 17:21FIAGT18 Pekaracing NV car no 4

The Stewards, having received a report from the FIA Technical Delegate, that post race check
of the engine of car no.4 the cylinder heads and the cylinder block are not in compliance with
art. 258.5.2.1.


Because of absence of the 2nd FIA steward Mr Howard Lapsley and the National steward Mr.
Roger Baele the proxy is given to Mr Richard Gabeler and Mr. Yves Bacquelaine.

After hearing the Technical Delegate Mr. Manuel Leal, the team manager Mr Jorge Segers and
the witness Mr. Alex Roberge, and note the explanations of GM Racing from December lst the
stewards decided

to exciude car no 4 from the race results.


Offence: car is not compliance with art. 258.5.2.1


The competitor is reminded of his right of appeal.