Connect with us


Lamborghini GTD Teams Penalized Following Rolex 24

Lamborghini GTD teams given penalties by IMSA in sandbagging rule…

Photo: Jamey Price/Lamborghini

Photo: Jamey Price/Lamborghini

Lamborghini and its customer teams have been hit with a series of penalties following last month’s Rolex 24 at Daytona, IMSA announced Monday.

All five of the Lamborghini Huracan GT3 entries, fielded by Konrad Motorsport, Paul Miller Racing, O’Gara Motorsport and Change Racing, have been given post-race time penalties equivalent to a stop and hold plus 5-minute penalty.

Additionally, Lamborghini has lost all of its GTD championship points from Daytona and has also been given a $25,000 fine.

The ruling comes in the wake of an alleged performance advantage by the Italian manufacturer’s cars in the IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship season-opener.

The four quickest race laps in GTD were all set by Huracan GT3 teams, with Richard Antinucci’s 1:45.873 time in the No. 11 O’Gara entry more than one second faster than the quickest time set by a non-Lamborghini.

IMSA said the penalties have been applied under Sporting Regulation Attachment 2, Paragraph 2.9, which states the following:

“Competitors and manufacturers are expected to provide valid data upon request to assist IMSA in the BoP process.

“Any competitor or manufacturer who deliberately gives false information, attempts to influence the BoP process, or displays a level of performance beyond the expected result may be issued a penalty prior to, during, or after a race of a minimum stop plus five (5) minutes.

“Penalties assessed after the race are added to the car’s finishing time for the race and may include a lap count penalty.”

The ruling follows the completion of dyno testing of each of the Huracan GT3’s engines at NASCAR’s R&D center in Concord, N.C. All five of the engines, plus the GTD class-winning Magnus Racing Audi R8 LMS powerplant, were impounded post-race for further inspection.

It is the first time IMSA has enacted its so-called “sandbagging” rule, which has been in the rulebook since the start of the 2014 season.

The revised results sees the fifth-place finishing No. 28 Konrad entry drop to 10th in class, with the O’Gara car losing one position (14th to 15th) and the remaining cars maintaining their finishing positions. Click Here for the revised unofficial results.

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 Channel, and contributes to other publications worldwide. Contact John



  1. Chris

    February 22, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    If they can race let them race. If they can go faster then let everyone else modify they’re cars as well. IMSA thinks the 5 min penalty will slow them down and put them behind, I don’t think so. Go Lamborghini and show me what you can do in Sebring.

    • Steve

      February 22, 2016 at 2:43 pm

      Do you even understand BOP?

      • someone

        February 22, 2016 at 3:15 pm

        Don’t waste your time he doesn’t even understand the GT3 rule book.

    • Mike

      February 22, 2016 at 2:46 pm

      this penalty applies to their race results at the 24hr… not in the future. BOP will bring them down for sure now.

    • John

      February 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      Their. They’re means they are.

    • GTurner38

      February 22, 2016 at 8:02 pm

      The problem is trying to get cars that are based on road vehicles to a level that allows for competition. If you look across the GT3 landscape, you have cars that are designed with track performance over style (ie Lamborghini and Ferrari) going up against cars that put more emphasis on luxury (Aston Martin, BMW, and Bentley), so simply writing a rulebook and letting everyone build to those rules will inevitably mean some of those makes won’t be competitive. From a purist point of view that’s fine, but it means there will be a lack of variety as there would be no point in entering a car that can’t win because the road car is too far removed from what the rulebook favors.

      My only problem with the sandbagging rule is that it’s too subjective. If they are going to use dyno numbers and windtunnel testing, I’d rather it be done by the series. I’d also like to see the series hire a couple drivers specifically to run cars for BoP testing rather than relying on the teams.

      • StueyB83

        February 22, 2016 at 8:12 pm

        That’s not how GT3 works. It an equivalency formula. There are limited build rules – the car could be a tube frame for all you know under the skin (though most aren’t). In a nutshell, the manufacturers build up the chosen model to a weight and power window set by the FIA, and then performance balancing is applied.

        The only manufacturer that has failed to be in this window so far is Lexus.

        The result is that some makes will be stronger in some track aspects and others strong in other aspects but over all, the lap time is within a small window.

  2. Mike

    February 22, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    It was great after the race in tech. Hearing mechanics chat about knowing they are “turned up.” Two cars went straight back to the garages to pull engines while the rest of us did our normal post race tech inspections. Glad IMSA is putting some weight to the rules.

  3. Jack

    February 22, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Cool now can IMSA take the damn mufflers off the Aston Martins and BMW’s?

    • Jack

      February 22, 2016 at 4:51 pm

      the bmw’s is actually that loud, same as the ferrari. they just arnt loud cars. the aston was affected the muffler.

      • someone

        February 22, 2016 at 11:15 pm

        They aren’t loud because of the Turbos.

    • Mark

      February 22, 2016 at 5:55 pm

      I second that with the Aston

  4. Mark

    February 22, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    This is why i dont like GT racing anymore this BOP is shit, i loved that the lambos were faster, Hell in the straights they were as fast if not faster then the GTLM. Made for some interesting TV.

    • Bakkster

      February 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm

      The problem is that it’s not like Lambo built a better car under the rules, like you’re hoping for. They cheated and got caught doing so in a class that has basically no rules aside from ‘get BoP’.

    • BlahTeeb

      February 22, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      I don’t think you understand BoP. Lambo didn’t build a faster car. Every car is tuned down/controlled for a more interesting/equal match. Lambo didn’t respect that tune down.

      Believe me, if every went free for fall with no BoP, Lambo wouldn’t be first.

      Also, if you don’t like GT racing because of BoP, then you probably shouldn’t watch other racing formats either, as BoP and restrictions exists nearly everywhere beyond street racing.

      • Alric8

        February 22, 2016 at 7:53 pm

        I do wonder what GT3 minus BoP would be like.
        Lambo have a reliable, fast package, they still coul’ve won without all the sandbagging, but they basically made themselves seem slow even though they were perfectly good.

        • Bakkster

          February 23, 2016 at 7:03 am

          It would look like GT1, only with fewer OEMs and it would have only lasted a few expensive years.

          • JeffB

            February 23, 2016 at 9:25 pm

            What he said. Spot on.

      • StueyB83

        February 22, 2016 at 8:13 pm

        Nailed it in one!

    • BartHoleMy

      February 23, 2016 at 9:33 pm

      You realize they run and audi R8 motor in that car?

  5. gtgianlu

    February 22, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    R8 and Huracan shares the same drivetrain,I thought the Huracan was faster on the straight because of the aero.I can’t realize what they could have done

    • Jack

      February 22, 2016 at 4:52 pm

      they have the same engine, but did not share the same restrictor size.

      • gtgianlu

        February 22, 2016 at 5:00 pm

        R8 1300kgx2x38mm,Huracan 1280kgx2x37mm,same max rpm 8500,same fuel tank,90l.Not a world apart.In Europe it was 1300kgx2x38mm,and it made the pole at the Paul Ricard,and at Monza,both well known for their long straights.And the R8 struggled…

        • GTurner38

          February 22, 2016 at 8:08 pm

          The Lambos were caught running a restrictor that was part of the Audi package in the past but had been banned because it gave higher than expected power output. While the Audi entries had the acceptable units mounted, Lamborghini ran the banned ones and made more power.

    • Georg

      February 22, 2016 at 5:29 pm

      That’s a very good question. Of course, cars are not the same, but their difference in lap times and top speed seems too big given their large amount of identical key parts and similarity in the Daytona BoP figures.

      It would be real sad if Audi is masking their real pace – they won but didn’t clock fastest race laps, meaning they probably won’t get tuned down for the coming races.

      This is the downsize of BoP. I’m not against the system, but against the people misusing it, whether they get caught or not.

      • StueyB83

        February 22, 2016 at 11:18 pm

        Historically, the R8’s have never been fast in the straights – they have always conceded on tracks like Mt Panorama – especially on conrod straight, because Audi made them dominant on fast turns and high downforce circuits and had to be pegged back elsewhere. That’s not to say it wasn’t fast: Car previously held the lap record – however on a clean lap.

    • Alroc8

      February 22, 2016 at 7:49 pm

      Even without the OP BoP the Lambo would still be a rocket on the banking, shame they clearly went a little OTT on getting their way.

  6. gtgianlu

    February 22, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    Sorry,it didn’t make the pole at Monza,but won the race.There are rumors about non authorized parts in the air intakes

  7. GTD

    February 22, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    It is an interesting dilemma. We have 3 players in the game all with differing responsibilities. IMSA’s job is to prepare the rules and to enforce them. Lamborghini’s role is to build a car within a certain specification and adhere to a certain homologation spec. The team is responsible for making sure it is within the technical specifications set forth by the homologation and IMSA.
    IMSA decided after the Roar to have Lamborghini build a new restrictor. This was not a homologated piece and this piece had to be custom built (remember they don’t follow the international SRO/ACO GT3 rules which work great for the rest of the world). In doing so they opened a can of worms they were not qualified to deal with (remember the SRO/ACO comment before). We will continue to see this from the countless other tricks used in GT3 IMSA hasn’t yet addressed. (one more reason SRO/ACO rules need to be in place)
    Lamborghini wanted to use a known homologated restrictor but were turned down. So, they did as they were asked, they built a restrictor. One that met the technical requirements set forth by IMSA (hence why no technical penalty was issued, it didn’t break or bend any technical rules). By the time the teams got the new restrictor it was 3 days before the race, the same 3 days which proceeded to dump 5 inches of rain on Daytona. It would have been impossible for any team to know the pace of the car.
    So, IMSA said build a restrictor, Lamborghini built a restrictor, and the teams ran the mandatory restrictor set forth by IMSA. Hummmm, I wonder who dropped the ball here???

    • NASCAR/DPs Suck

      February 22, 2016 at 5:24 pm

      Interesting, the way it was layed out on another website stated they used the previous gen R8 restrictor and not a custom piece.

    • gtgianlu

      February 22, 2016 at 5:27 pm

      You show a very good point.Again,is it so difficult to set just one bop EVERYWHERE,considering the same car specs all over the world?Is the air in the Us so thinner than in Europe?

      • Bakkster

        February 22, 2016 at 5:33 pm

        Even SRO has 3 or 4 different table depending on the track they’re visiting. And I can’t think of a single national GT3 series that doesn’t adjust away from the SRO BoP. PWC, BGT, SuperGT, IGTC, etc all do it (if for no other reason than different tires and tracks).

        • gtgianlu

          February 22, 2016 at 5:52 pm

          I know,but tell me,did it make any sense? They race the same cars,and tires are not a big factor,and I reckon in ‘016 it would not be very a great task to set a bop balanced for every track.And Imsa told they apply on every Gtlm/Gtd a very up to date Bosch data recorder…

          • Bakkster

            February 22, 2016 at 6:02 pm

            Tires are a huge factor, how else do you think GTE and GT3 cars are as fast or faster than GT1 cars used to be?

            I’m confused, do you want a single BoP for everywhere, or one BoP that works at every track?

          • GTurner38

            February 22, 2016 at 8:28 pm

            I have to agree with Bakkster on the tire issue. Tires are the reason why a Porsche GTLM car won Petit in the rain. They are a big reason why LMP2 cars in IMSA trim aren’t miles ahead of the DPs like they were before the merger. As for setting BoP, if they use a single BoP for every track, we might see cars perform equally over a season but there will definitely be favorites at each track. That’s the reason for the SRO low/medium/high downforce BoP tables to try to even them out everywhere.

          • gtgianlu

            February 23, 2016 at 6:02 am

            Tires are not a big factor because there aren’t tire wars,except at the N24 an Bathurst,each championship has its one,everyone runs the same tire,so it couldn’t be a factor where setting a bop,this’s what I’m meaning.My thought is to have a single bop sheet which can work on every kind of tracks,all over the world.A unicorn?? Thanks guys and sorry for my english

          • Bakkster

            February 23, 2016 at 7:13 am

            Just like the Michelin single stint tire that worked better on the Porsche and Ferrari in GTLM, it’s about those spec tires working differently. It’s possible that Pirellis works best on mid engine cars, Avons work best on front engine cars, Hankooks best on lighter cars, and Continentals best on heavy cars.

            It is, unfortunately, a unicorn. It would also require the FIA to get it right the first time. The national series are often taking it upon themselves to fix things the FIA missed.

  8. Mike S.

    February 22, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Wonder if O’Gara has to pay up even though it closed shop last week?

  9. Rennsport4.4TV8

    February 22, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Well I guess it better for them to have been sandbagging and not have changed the engine before the race. We’ll see if they try anything sketchy for Sebring.

    Also I see a huge amount of people commenting not understanding that this isnt them holding back Lamborghini. Everyone’s cars are held back to be even, but Lamborghini’s teams tried to get around having restrictors by deliberately slowing down in testing before the race.

    • Rennsport4.4TV8

      February 23, 2016 at 12:23 am

      They also had a banned piece of equipment on the car.

  10. StueyB83

    February 22, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    It’s funny how the lambo factory effort has had a few BoP and spec faux pas’ in its short life. BES monza comes to mind as one, although the aftermath was poorly handled.

    But even before that the car was build too wide for the regulation and had to have last minute modifications to bring it back to an acceptable level.

  11. Michael

    February 22, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    Lambo has an identical car to the Audi R8 in everyway except the bodywork (aero). Every single GTD team sand bagged from the Test through the Race, and they all did because IMSA told them the lap time they wanted to see out of a GTD car. So teams all turned that lap time to keep IMSA happy. The Lambo cars didn’t hold back in the race, everyone else did because IMSA told them what lap time to run. nothing but the hard facts.
    Lambo did however not provide all of the required data at the TEST because they failed to read the rules correctly in regards to the spec logger. So maybe IMSA is slapping their hands for that.

    • StueyB83

      February 22, 2016 at 11:28 pm

      No. GTD car’s are not driven to a time Delta, they are driven flat out. How fast “flat out” is, is controlled by physical devices on the cars air intake to limit power and with ballast plates to control the cars weight. This is done to a formula for each model of car so they all meet the lap time.

      There is typically a specification air restrictor for each model to restrict air and thus cap power. All Lamborghini’s were found with non specification restrictors. All must have been supplied by the manufacturer. That act there, is called cheating.

      No, Lamborghini has not built the fastest car on merit.

      • Michael

        February 23, 2016 at 2:45 am

        “GTD car’s are not driven to a time Delta, they are driven flat out”
        LOL now that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all year!

      • Gaby

        February 23, 2016 at 7:08 am

        The Lamborghini restrictor was seen by Imsa officials before the race and approved.

  12. Michael

    February 23, 2016 at 2:45 am

    “GTD car’s are not driven to a time Delta, they are driven flat out”
    LOL now that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all year!

  13. Gaby

    February 23, 2016 at 6:37 am

    At Imsa they do not even respect their own rules. In art 2.4 Appendix 2 it’s written any change in Bop takes effect 7 days after the publication. Bulletin 16.12 where the Bop for the Rolex was imposed (including the new Lambo restrictor) was published on January 27 for a race only a few days after. Charlatans.

  14. Bakkster

    February 23, 2016 at 7:18 am

    It was published on the 22nd, and revised for Ford who requested their fuel load be reduced so they didn’t violate the sandbagging rule. The date on their website shows the revision date, but you can see it’s numbered before another bulletin also published on the 22nd.

  15. Ken

    April 13, 2016 at 12:02 pm

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More in IWSC