Long Beach: Highcroft Racing statement on penalty

PATRON HIGHCROFT RACING STATEMENT REGARDING IMSA LONG BEACH PENALTY DANBURY, CT, Thursday, April 30, 2009: Patron Highcroft Racing is appreciative to IMSA for the efforts applied to the post-event examination of the penalty received by the team...

PATRON HIGHCROFT RACING STATEMENT REGARDING IMSA LONG BEACH PENALTY

DANBURY, CT, Thursday, April 30, 2009: Patron Highcroft Racing is appreciative to IMSA for the efforts applied to the post-event examination of the penalty received by the team during the recent Tequila Patron American Le Mans Series event at Long Beach.

Our team's efforts to clarify the penalty were in no way meant to tarnish the victory by our sister Acura team at de Ferran Motorsport. We wish to congratulate them on their win and look forward to continuing our battle for the LMP1 championship at Salt Lake City.

In reply to the IMSA statement, Patron Highcroft Racing would like to point out:

* The team was alleged to have violated Art. 16.1.2.2 of the Standing Supplementary Regulations of the American Le Mans Series - stating Fire bottle person must wear "a full coverage helmet with face shield that is positioned down".

* Our fire bottle crew member was equipped with a motocross-style helmet with chin guard, fire retardant balaclava (head sock) and face shield goggles.

* Our fire bottle crew member had his goggles (face shield) in place during the Long Beach pit stop.

* The wording of Art 16.1.2.2. differs from that which is applied to refuellers from Art. 17.6.2 (b) "helmet with a closed visor" in regards the equipment required by "fuel attendants".

* Our refueller is equipped with a full-face helmet and fire retardant balaclava at every round of the American Le Mans Series including Long Beach.

* Our telemetry indicates our car was held in excess of the 20 second penalty applied.

Patron Highcroft Racing would like to thank the IMSA team for their efforts in investigating this matter and look forward to receiving information regarding any change in equipment tech inspection procedures and precise clarification regarding the difference between Art 16.1.2.2 and Art. 17.6.2 (b) in the near future.

-credit: phr

Be part of something big

Write a comment
Show comments
About this article
Series ALMS