Connect with us

IWSC

Lamborghini: All Huracan GT3s in Compliance with Rules at Rolex 24

Lamborghini states all cars complied with IMSA rules at Daytona…

Photo: Jamey Price/Lamborghini

Photo: Jamey Price/Lamborghini

Lamborghini has stated that all five of its customer Huracan GT3s that took part in last month’s Rolex 24 at Daytona complied with IMSA’s technical regulations and respected the sanctioning body’s Balance of Performance process.

The Italian manufacturer and its GT Daytona customer teams were penalized on Monday for what IMSA has deemed to be a performance advantage in the WeatherTech SportsCar Championship season-opener, which saw the V10-powered GT3 machines noticeably quicker than the competition in the race.

It has resulted in all Huracan GT3s behind given a post-race penalty of five minutes, as well as Lamborghini losing all championship points from the opening round, as well as facing a $25,000 fine.

According to the manufacturer, all five cars passed pre and post-race technical inspection, with Lamborghini having worked with IMSA to achieve the car’s BoP with dyno testing prior to the Roar Before the Rolex 24, as well as providing data.

Giorgio Sanna, Head of Lamborghini Motorsport, has called for IMSA to comply closer to the FIA’s BoP process, which has been recognized as the worldwide standard for GT3 cars.

“Lamborghini Squadra Corse has always collaborated with IMSA with maximum transparency, in order to achieve a right BoP,” Sanna said in a statement.

“We are and will be available for IMSA technicians to achieve the performance required by IMSA. However, we hope more FIA components and technical parameters will be used in the future to ensure a right BoP.”

It’s understood the issue at Daytona stemmed from the type of air restrictor used on the cars, which allegedly gave the Huracan GT3s a performance advantage in the race. The cars had passed pre and post-race tech with its allocated air restrictor.

Six Huracan GT3s are expected to take part in next month’s Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring, with IMSA yet to declare the car’s BoP.

John Dagys is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Sportscar365 as well as the recently launched e-racing365 Web site for electric racing. Dagys spent eight years as a motorsports correspondent for FOXSports.com/SPEED Channel, and contributes to other publications worldwide. Contact John

37 Comments

37 Comments

  1. Gaby

    February 23, 2016 at 10:31 am

    It looks like the IMSA officials gave their ok for the restrictors.
    So how can IMSA claim that the cars exceeded the performances? Where the limit is written? They don’t know their job. They are ridiculous…

    • Jack Davies

      February 23, 2016 at 11:59 am

      Or were the restrictors imprinted with the approved part numbers, hence they passed tech, and when they were compared to the samples in Concord, NC by IMSA, were they found to be different parts with the serial number of the correct past etched on them?

  2. Mike S.

    February 23, 2016 at 10:36 am

    Dun..dun..dun. This week As The World Turns.

  3. Eugene Abramoff

    February 23, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I know speculations are not the most productive way of thinking, however, it almost feels like BoP team somehow screwed up with their work and only later realized that and perhaps other teams started pressing on them. Where they can not allow everyone to think they are not up to the task, if indeed it was their fault, neither can they ignore the fact that, maybe, just maybe, BoP was not done thorough enough.
    Everyone know that new Lamborghini cars are very fast on the straight and with GTD aerodynamic package they are even faster due to low drag.
    So would the teams and manufacture deliberately sabotage the process of BoP hoping to gain minor advantage while putting their customers and brand’s name in jeopardy?
    I would imagine that IMSA was simply not ready for so many new models and somehow somewhere they made some mistakes and miscalculations.

    Also note that the winning Audi was put under investigations, and that car has the same engine as the Huracans, but some more drag, so they were able to achieve great results but time difference was not that notable because of better balance of the model itself, on the track where speed makes more difference.

    • Bakkster

      February 23, 2016 at 11:30 am

      I’d be curious to find out how IMSA communicates expected performance to the teams. Do they tell teams “we expect you’ll reach X top speed and set Y best lap time”?

      We saw Ford approach IMSA and ask for less fuel so as not to exceed expected performance, clearly IMSA expected the same from Lambo. Did Lambo try to pull a fast one, or was the expectation not communicated effectively?

  4. 458Fan

    February 23, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Nice to see IMSA stand up and enforce the rules. The Lambos all ran a restrictor that was a different design than homologated and stamped with the original part number. Huge Cheat. Blatant. Stick it to them.

    • Jack Davies

      February 23, 2016 at 12:00 pm

      This. 458Fan has it right

    • HurucanFan

      February 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm

      Homologated and approved should be same thing…Hurucans shouldn’t have been allowed on the track with a non-homologated part. Sure there was some sneakiness by some teams, but IMSA should have caught that before any race.

      It makes no sense that IMSA asks Audi not to use the part, then it’s cool for Lambos to use them, then after the race it’s not okay again. That’s some tarded stuff. You’re sticking it to the wrong people!

    • Alric8

      February 23, 2016 at 12:50 pm

      NICE NAME :D.
      In all seriousness, I’m pretty sure IMSA actually asked for a new restrictor.

    • Mike S.

      February 23, 2016 at 8:11 pm

      Exaclty maybe Ferrari slipped IMSA officials money to put on blinders as the illegal equipment was staring at them all weekend at tech. Or maybe Enzo himself rose from the dead and changed the restrictors overnight in the haulers. Also, today the head of Lambo Domenicali used to be a Ferrari man. So, tired of car make vs car make debate. Its business and a lot of them have slept in each others beds, figuratively speaking. Yeah what comes around goes around but someone really messed up here. I blame Volkswagen as they own Lambo. Same cheats have moved from diesel projects to Lambo restrictors. I dunno just shows IMSA is the sanctioning body and need to be better at catching it beforehand as I am sure most teams would cheat if they know they wouldn’t get caught. I remember Flying Lizards got penalized due to a restrictor that was within specs at the start of the race but by the end had deteriorated to let enough air in. Post race penalty. Sucks but yeah wasn’t in specs after race even though no one touched it during the race What’s done is done so I am sure the variety of machinery is causing problems as it isn’t just a Porsche Cup car class now in GTD.

  5. vanillachinchilla

    February 23, 2016 at 11:38 am

    I assume it is not clear whether or not they were allowed to be using this restrictor? Were they or weren’t they? There is a blatant gap in the info here… Was the lambo much faster than in testing? If so what do Lambo and the teams attribute that difference to? I don’t understand how IMSA can be so un-transparent about how they justified this, and equally, how Lambo can leave all these holes in their defense arguments if they are so innocent?

    • GTurner38

      February 23, 2016 at 9:01 pm

      In testing, the fastest GTD lap was a 1:47.7. In the race the Lambos ran 1:45.8. The Lambos also set 72 of the 75 fastest speeds in the speed trap. The end result is that they compared the Lambo engines with an Audi engine that was supposed to be identical to them but didn’t set a top speed within the top 1000 during the race.

  6. vanillachinchilla

    February 23, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Sorry but this is what’s bugging me-

    “It’s understood the issue at Daytona stemmed from the type of air restrictor used on the cars, which allegedly gave the Huracan GT3s a performance advantage in the race. The cars had passed pre and post-race tech with its allocated air restrictor.”

    What does performance advantage mean? Was it or was it not the same air restrictor that was approved? If it was the same hardware then what is the penalty for? Just driver sandbagging?

    • Bakkster

      February 23, 2016 at 11:45 am

      Sounds like the inner diameter of the holes was correct, but the design allowed for more airflow than expected. The same design was reportedly used on the GT3 Audis previously and IMSA asked them not to use it again.

      • Jack Davies

        February 23, 2016 at 12:01 pm

        Another dead on comment. Bakkster and 458fan have it nailed.

  7. Ernie2492

    February 23, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    I wonder if Paul Miller & Change Racing would switch to 488 GT3 after Sebring..?

    • Eugene Abramoff

      February 23, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      BoP approved it did they not? It is not the team’s fault but the regulations, but they wont admit the fact that they miscalculated.

      The only penalty they could ever give Lamborghini for this is to pull every car back towards a follow up position an give them the same points, not ruin championship for them. Basically that would make 2nd car 3rd so there would be 2 3rd places.

      • Eugene Abramoff

        February 23, 2016 at 12:28 pm

        Sorry, this was @Jack Davies

      • Bakkster

        February 23, 2016 at 12:53 pm

        BoP has nothing to do with approval of parts, that’s what homologation is for.

        IMSA’s rules state that even if the series miscalculates, it’s the responsibility of the OEMs and teams to correct IMSA before the race. It’s not that the restrictor was an unacceptable design, but that the design would require smaller holes to get the engine to the right HP.

        That’s why I’m wondering how the expectation was communicated.

    • Bakkster

      February 23, 2016 at 12:50 pm

      Aren’t 488 GT3s backordered?

      • Ernie2492

        February 23, 2016 at 1:19 pm

        I dunno about that.

  8. rennsport4.4tV8

    February 23, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Nice try Lamborghini. We all saw what you guys pulled at Monza. Sure you got it appealed, but that was on the basis of how the accusation was handled. It was not on a false accusation. This is coming from a long time Lamborghini fan. Just take the hit, claim it was an accident, and move on. Everyone gets caught. I’m sure there isn’t a manufacturer with racing heritage who hasn’t. The racing goes on, guys.

    • rennsport4.4tV8

      February 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      Lamborghini was obviously trying to set off its competitive racing debuts with wins on both continents. You’ll get their eventually, Lamborghini.

  9. pdxracefan

    February 23, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    Sounds like there’s alot here that is not being revealed, and probably more to the story.

  10. diggs

    February 23, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Best thing at this point is for IMSA and Lambo not to get in a pissing contest and screw over the spectator in the long run (these seems to be imsa’s mode of operating) or they just hate spectators.

  11. Nick1

    February 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Clearly you got busted Lambo. Accept it and fight back at Sebring

  12. Mitchell

    February 23, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    Let me clarify a few issues. Firstly, I’m not going to hide behind a screen name nor pretend to be an impartial participant. I am knee deep in this and know the full story. Believe it, don’t believe it, agree with me, or don’t agree with me. This is MY VERSION of what went on. Do with it what you will. I’m the TM for Paul Miller Racing and have been directly involved since day one. Our 48 car received a penalty for not abiding by the sporting regs. I don’t agree with this. As others have mentioned on this site and others my car ran the ONLY restrictor IMSA allowed us to run. It wasn’t a re-part numbered piece nor was it a back room formula one piece. It was a design which was submitted to IMSA and approved by IMSA and manufactured for this race. I, nor did any other Lamborghini team submit this design nor did we approve it, yet it WAS the ONLY restrictor I was allowed to use for the race. How then, could I or any other Lamborghini team, be responsible for that? Oh yes, someone will certainly bring up the sandbagging argument saying we slowed down as not to be detected. Let’s look at that. At the Roar we were ballistic. I mean, we were fast, very fast. Did I expect a BoP, of course! Did we deserve a BoP? Duh! That isn’t even a question. The Lamborghini GT3 car is a masterpiece. I have never seen its equal in GT3 trim. When we got word of the BoP after the Roar we went on as business as usual, IMSA had the data and they would adjust it as needed. NOBODY from IMSA ever called me or any other team to ask for our advice on the restrictor size or design. So again, how is that MY responsibility?

    Now, enter the race weekend. I didn’t have a spare engine and was missing some critical spares for the race. During testing it poured. I saw one post of 5 inches but I remember it as closer to 10 inches over the testing days. I elected not to go out and smash up the car (others for whatever reason did go out and it didn’t work out very well for them). The ONLY time I had to set up the car was in the session after qualifying. We were fast. Was I happy? Of course I was happy, I had a smile from ear to ear! We had a car which could win. The race came and we knew we were fast, we also knew we were not going to enjoy that performance level for Sebring so our motto was, “We may as well do our best while we have an advantage.” So off we went. We were super fast, how is that sandbagging? Did we try to mask our pace? Did any Lambo team? Someone needs to define sandbagging for me because this dumb Texan must not speak English very well. We all had the fastest 70 something fastest laps. Sandbagging? Really? Jesus, if we were sandbagging all the other competitors should just go home and IMSA should just give us the trophy now and we can save a lot of time.

    So, why did write this? Not because we lost points (we didn’t). Because I think I can change the minds of a few know it all’s whom I probably wouldn’t like if met them? Hardly. No. I wrote this because the crew busted their asses for months getting a car late and working nights and weekends just to make this race. To allow them to be called cheaters while the real culprits sit behind desks far away from Buford, Georgia isn’t going to happen. They can issue all the penalties they want, but me, my team, and my boss are not to blame for their failures.

    Open for ridicule, have it it. As I said, that’s MY version of this SNAFU.

    • Keith

      February 23, 2016 at 5:52 pm

      Very well said. To many clowns on here that know nothing of what it takes to do this. Arm chair racers. It to upsets me seeing these comments from these clowns, even though I am no longer with a team. I know/knew some of your guys from my CORE days.

    • Andrew

      February 23, 2016 at 5:55 pm

      Then take your toy and go play in another sandbox, or man up and bitch at imsa and take them to court. Think you’re right? Then prove it and demand they demonstrate how you were wrong, bitching on a message board is a high school kid or bush league move at best.

      • RacerJason

        February 24, 2016 at 9:32 am

        I would not define his comment as bitching but an attempt to share the true facts. Something that rarely happens here because many fans are rabid speculators. The only thing bush league here was your reply.

    • StueyB83

      February 23, 2016 at 6:08 pm

      Thanks for the constructive explanation from your end. There were undoubtably, tough time frames and issues with running time to best establish the BoP that could be applied for the race.

      PMR has, in all fairness, run with what was supplied to you, as have the other teams – and you are right to defend the work you and your crew did to field the car. I don’t take the view that you guys did anything unsporting.

      It is a really sad situation to read that the part supplied has popped up before in a previous guise, discussed and removed from play, seeming to only make a return. In the first instance, it should have been reviewed and addressed with a more specific regulation to clarify the types of restrictor allowed.

      Also, the scenario with these very early races and brand new machinery (and new class spec) means the BoP process in its infancy is fraught with issues.

      I am one who has written Lamborghini (as the manufacturer) and cheat in the same sentence, but my opinion doesn’t matter on iota. IMSA has acted as it deems appropriate. BoP adjustments will be made, and I am only hoping to see some fair and intense battles from here on in.

    • Rennsport4.4TV8

      February 23, 2016 at 6:34 pm

      Dude, Most of the people I’ve seen are blaming Lamborghini. I have not seen one person blame the people on the teams for cheating.

    • 458Fan

      February 23, 2016 at 7:14 pm

      This was totally not a team thing for sure. The teams did not PUT A PURPOSELY WRONG PART NUMBER ON A RESTRICTOR THEY KNEW WASN’T THE ONE THAT WAS HOMOLOGATED FOR THE CAR! Lambo did that! Bummer is the rules are the rules and the BOP was thrown upside down by that so the teams suffer. Hey guys when checkwriters like Bryce and Justin take each other out while fighting for the lead ahead of real factory drivers that can’t just stay. Usually they would take each other out trying to stay on the lead lap. I will say the Paul Miller Lambo was by far the best prepared and nicest of the bunch. Those who know what they are looking at would agree. Class team and crap deal for them. sorry dudes. The 488 will rule.

    • GTurner38

      February 23, 2016 at 9:20 pm

      The accusations of sandbagging aren’t that the Lambos were holding back during the race. It’s more of a question as to why they weren’t a second ahead of everybody at the Roar. I’ve seen the average of the 10 fastest laps from each GTD car and the gap is pretty huge. We’re talking a Lambo averaging 1:46.2 with Porsche at 1:47.4, Aston Martin and both versions of the Audi at 1:47.6, Ferrari at 1:47.9, Dodge at 1:48.0 and BMW at 1:48.2. I can certainly understand how questions can be raised when a car that was at best a couple tenths ahead in testing now has a gap to second that is the same as the gap from the quickest non-Lambo to the slowest car in the race.

      • Rennsport4.4TV8

        February 23, 2016 at 11:59 pm

        Well said.

  13. David Chaste

    February 24, 2016 at 1:52 am

    Imsa’s fault. They had the car on the dyno, and also saw the cars practice. They just hate to say they dropped the ball somewhere. The FIA used to have Christophe bouchut drive all cars applying for homologation in order to get a baseline performance. Imsa could do the same. Find a freelance hot shoe not in a contract with a team and do the same. The current Imsa has as much resources (or more) than the FIA, there’s no excuse.

    This will not motivate new manufacturers to join the serie. And all the resources the teams spent on the race just to be treated this way is agravating. They should only take manufacturers’ points away from lambo and leave the teams their original finishing positions.

    • susafan

      February 24, 2016 at 3:16 am

      Guy Cosmo and Alex Gurney

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

More in IWSC