10 . We should add that neither consideration of whether or not to extend time , or consideration of an appeal on the merits should take place without an appellant knowing of the hearing and having the opportunity to be present , even though they may choose not to be .

The Race 11 . The race documentation contains various terms to describe the race as a whole , the race stopped by the first red flag and the race stopped by the second . For these purposes , “ The Race ” refers to the race overall , “ Part 1 ” refers to the race up to the first red flag and “ Part 2 ” refers to the restarted race to the second red flag .

12 . It was common ground between the parties that when the first red flag was shown , 5 laps had been completed , and 7 minutes 53 seconds of the race duration remained . It followed that Part 1 was not a “ no contest .” More than 2 laps , but less than 75 % race distance had been completed . The restart grid was correctly arranged according to GR Q12.15.2 , the grid for the restart being arranged , as the regulation directs , according to the finishing order of Part 1 at one lap less than the number of laps completed by the leader at the time of the first showing of the red flag , I . e ., reverted to 4 laps .

13 . The Clerk of the Course , acting in accordance with GR Q12.16 ( which must imply duration as well as laps ), adjusted the duration of the second part to 6 minutes . GR Q12.16.1 provides that that new duration shall be used for the calculation of 75 % under GR Q12.15.2 and GR Q12.15.5 .

14 . In our judgment , the provisions of a “ no contest ” do not apply to Part 2 , because although GR Q12.15.1 refers to “ any race ” stopped before the leader has completed 2 laps ” the regulation clearly directs that available competitors will restart . That restarted part of any race is not independent , but part of the overall race duration , be that of laps or , as in this case , duration . 15 . As the duration of Part 2 was 2 minutes 50 seconds , when that is aggregated with the 7 minute 7 second duration of Part 1 , the total exceeds 75 % of the adjusted race distance and GR Q12.15.5 applies : “ unless restarted , the result will be based on the order of crossing the finishing line at one lap less than the number of laps completed by the leader at the time of the first showing of the Red Flag .” i . e ., 2 reverted to 1 lap .

16 . Accordingly , in our judgment , any decision that The Race was a “ No Contest ” was incorrect . The Race should correctly be classified according to the order of crossing the finishing line at one lap less than the number of laps completed by the leader at the time of the showing of the Red Flag during Part 2 .

17 . We have been referred to TSL ’ s live timing of Part 2 , which confirms that the red flag was shown during lap 3 , with the majority of the competing cars having completed 2 laps , while the Appellant was leading , from Car 10 and Car 448 , with the pole sitter , Car 110 having fallen to 4th place . The JSCC Classification shows that to be the finishing order for those cars at the end of lap 1 . That may be sufficient to deal with this appeal , but we note that the order of some other competitors varies between what is shown on TSL and what is recorded in the Classification .

Fastest Lap

18 . The fastest lap recorded in Part 1 was 59.044 seconds , by the driver of Car 10 on lap 5 . The fastest lap recorded in Part 2 was 1.06.202 , recorded by the Appellant on lap 1 .

19 . The Appellant argued that the effect of GR Q12.15.2 was to negate the lap on which the red flag was shown , and that the same countback should be applied to fastest laps as to arranging the grid for the restart . On behalf of Motorsport UK , it was argued that neither GR Q12.15 nor the relevant Championship Regulation , CR 3.7.4 make contain any reference to support that contention .

20 . We consider that GR Q12.15.2 is clear , and limited to how the grid should be arranged where the regulation applies . In the absence of clear reference to fastest laps , the interpretation urged by the Appellant cannot be upheld . On the evidence , we find that the fastest lap of The Race was the 59.044 seconds recorded by the driver of Car 10 .

Conclusions

21 . The appeal against the decision of the Stewards of the Event succeeds insofar as it relates to the classification of The Race , for the reasons given .

22 . Insofar as that appeal relates to the award of fastest lap , again for the reasons given , the appeal fails .

23 . The results of The Race are to be recalculated , and the results republished .

24 . The appeal against the decision of the Championship Stewards succeeds in part , for the same reasons . The Championship points for The Race and fastest lap are to be recalculated consistently with the recalculated race results set out above .

25 . The appeal having been mostly successful ; the appeal fee is to be refunded .

Mark Heywood KC , Chair 16th February 2025

44

Revolution - March 2025