hero-img

Kostecki investigated after Triple Eight request

Supercars
16 Jun
Brodie Kostecki has been investigated and cleared over alleged “crowding” on Will Brown
Advertisement
  • Brodie Kostecki investigated over Shootout gamesmanship

  • Triple Eight requested investigation over alleged “crowding” on Will Brown

  • Kostecki second, Brown third in Sunday’s Shootout

Brodie Kostecki has been investigated and cleared over alleged “crowding” on Will Brown during Sunday’s Shootout at the betr Darwin Triple Crown.

Kostecki playfully caught Brown following the former’s lap in the Boost Mobile Top Ten Shootout, before Brown started his own lap.

In a TV interview, Kostecki said: “I might just drive onto the back of him, flash my lights… Yeah, try to distract him,” before flashing his headlights.

Brown eventually set the third-fastest time, and will start third for Race 12 behind pole-sitter Broc Feeney and Kostecki.

Both drivers laughed off the gamesmanship, but it has been revealed that Triple Eight lodged a formal request for investigation, alleging Kostecki had “crowded” Brown and had admitted to “interfering” with Brown.

Per Rule D6.3.7.6 (c), a driver "must not interfere with, baulk or cause obstruction to any other Car which may be on the Race Track at the same time” after being shown the chequered flag at the end of its timed lap.

The stewards summoned both drivers and respective team representatives to a hearing, where per the report, Brown said that "nothing that he had seen Car 1 do had affected his push lap in any way."

Advertisement

Brown added that "nothing that Car 1 had done had interfered his push lap or his preparation lap, nor had it baulked him or caused any obstruction to his Car.”

Additionally, telemetry from Brown and Feeney’s cars "from their end of their preparation laps and their speed at the commencement of timing of their push laps and at the entry to Turn 1 was consistent with these concessions."

All told, Kostecki avoided a breach of the rules.

The full report is as follows: "Following the Session Triple Eight Race Engineering lodged a formal Request for Investigation with the DRD alleging that Car 1 had “crowded Car 87 on its cool down lap and [the Driver of Car 1] had admitted [on broadcast] to planning on interfering with Car 87”. The Stewards summoned the Teams and Drivers to investigate the allegation.

"At the commencement of the hearing the Driver of Car 87 said that nothing that he had seen Car 1 do had affected his push lap in any way. He agreed that nothing that Car 1 had done had interfered his push lap or his preparation lap, nor had it baulked him or caused any obstruction to his Car. The correspondence of the telemetry from Cars 87 and 88 (the Pole Car) of their end of their preparation laps and their speed at the commencement of timing of their push laps and at the entry to Turn 1 was consistent with these concessions. Given these acknowledgments, no breach of Rule D6.3.7.6(c) by the Driver of Car 1 could be established.

"The Driver of Car 1 acknowledged that it was unnecessary for him to have flashed his lights at Car 87 and he had done so during a post push lap Car to TV interview because he thought it would be “entertaining”. He said that he kept what he considered to be a reasonable gap behind Car 87 but doing so was difficult in the circumstances because he needed to preserve his tyres to use in the Race and that meant that he needed to maintain a sufficient speed on his cool down lap to avoid picking up dirt on his tyres. He said that Car 87 had been released to commence its preparation lap when there was only a short time remaining on Car 1’s push lap such that it was inevitable that Car 1 would catch Car 87 when Car 1 was finishing its cool down lap and Car 87 was approaching the end of its preparation lap. The Driver of Car 87 agreed that the interval between Cars in the TTSO at this Event appeared too short given the short lap time at this circuit.

"The Authorised Representative of Car 87 submitted that in other circumstances behaviour like that of the Driver of Car 1 could cause issues for Cars on their preparation lap and it should not be condoned or encouraged.

"Having reviewed Car 1’s judicial camera footage and on-board camera telemetry, we do not consider that Car 1 drove at any point so close to the rear of Car 87 to create any potential for interference."

Related News

Advertisement