The National Court is the UK Disciplinary, Investigatory and Appeal Court as required by the Statutes of the FIA and the International Sporting Code. The Court is independent of Motorsport UK and administered by an external lawyer and the judges are drawn from a panel of experienced motorsport lawyers and suitably qualified motorsport professionals

Sitting on 9th July 2025 Case No. J2025 / 19 Guy Spollen( Chair), Mike Harris, John Hopwood

This matter comes before the Court:

1. By way of an appeal by Chris Dyer who on 24th May 2025 was disqualified from a Porsche Club Championship race at Brands Hatch for running a Porsche Cayman S with power in excess of that permitted by the Regulations. 2. For consideration of the NCR Ch 7 Art 1.2 which states that:

34

“ At all times it is the responsibility of the Competitor to establish that the Vehicle presented is in conformity with the Regulations of the Event.” The essential facts are: 1. Following the last race of the day on 24th May 2025 the Appellant’ s Porsche Cayman S was transported to Parr Motorsport for a mid-season power test. The rolling road test conducted on 27th May 2025 revealed that the Appellant’ s vehicle produced 215.7 kW at the rear wheels when the mandatory maximum power permitted is 211 kW( Championship Regulation 45.1 Appendix 1).

2. A Scrutineer’ s Non-Compliance Report was duly submitted, and a telephone hearing was thereafter held on 29th May 2025 when the Appellant stated that: a) The car was new to the championship last year when black box data power units were fitted to monitor power. b) He had been told that his car was initially under powered and then later on in the season was just below the permitted power figure.

3. Subsequent written submissions by the Appellant indicated that: a) The Porsche Cayman S in question had been purchased with an unrepairable engine. b) A second-hand engine had been obtained from a breaker’ s yard, stripped and rebuilt using all genuine Porsche Cayman S components. c) This engine was subsequently found to be from a Porsche Cayman R. d) The ECU engine mapping of the restored engine had not been altered but from the back of the catalytic converter to the end of the exhaust system had been replaced as permitted together with the fitting of other permissible upgrades including the fitting of a dual mass flywheel, smaller crankshaft pulley, etc. e) At the start of the 2025 Porsche Club Championship the organisers reinforced the need for engine numbers to match those of the V5 documentation and that the Appellant had

Technical Eligibility Appeal— Chris Dyer

accordingly etched the old engine number on the replacement without obliterating the original letters and numbers, and in particular, the‘ R’ designation. f) It was categorically refuted that any attempt, deliberate or otherwise, had been made to gain any unfair advantage.

4. The Court noted that: a) The power test readings at Parr Motorsport, when an excess of power of approximately 2 per cent above that permitted had been found, had not actually been challenged by the Appellant. b) Under the Rules of the Porsche Club Championship competitors are able to access the testing equipment at Parr Motorsport to check if the power output of their competition vehicle is compliant with the Regulations.

5. The Court concluded that: a) The power of the Appellant’ s Porsche Cayman S was in excess of that permitted by the Regulations. b) Accordingly, the appeal must fail, and the appeal fee is forfeited. c) This is not however a case where there has been an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by running an engine with a power output in excess of that permitted by the Regulations. d) It is incumbent upon any entrant, particularly one who has a vehicle with a‘ bitza’ engine, to have it properly tested before competing with it in order to ensure that it is compliant with all the prevailing regulations. e) It was careless of the Appellant not to undertake a proper power output test of his Porsche Cayman engine. f) It cannot be appropriate for engine numbers, etc., to be changed by etching or otherwise. g) There should be no further penalties imposed.

6. Although the Regulations in this case appear well considered and presented, it is suggested that the Chart on page 27 of the Technical Regulations currently titled Appendix, Weights and Power be amended to read Appendix 1, Eligible Models, Weights and Power, that the column headed Model be consistent in including in the model description the Porsche model designation number( currently included for some but not all eligible models) and immediately below the chart a sentence added stating that any model not listed above is not eligible.

Guy Spollen, Chair 9th July 2025

Revolution- August 2025