Thai Motorsport Body Rules Kart Engine Illegal, Champion Stripped
The Thai Motorsport Association ruled that the kart driven by ‘Nong Phayu’ used an illegal engine in the Cadet B class, rendering his victory invalid. The association said all engines in that class must be identical, and the event organizer has been hospitalized due to stress. While the driver’s team may appeal, the association said a re‑race is unlikely and the organizer must address the violation.
The Thai Motorsport Association confirmed that the kart driven by ‘Nong Phayu’ used an engine that did not comply with the regulations, emphasizing that all engines in the Cadet B class must be identical. The event organizer reported feeling stressed and has been hospitalized. The controversy began after Nong Phayu won the Cadet B class at the TrueVisions Championship 2026, prompting a protest calling for verification of whether the engine met the rules. On October 15, 2026, the Royal Automobile Association of Thailand under royal patronage, together with the Sports Association, issued a statement regarding the Cadet‑B class of the Super Kart Thailand Championship 2026. It said it had summoned the organizer for information, noted that protests are a normal part of motorsport, and explained that this protest concerned technical regulations, not the driver. While protests should be settled at the circuit, appeals can be lodged with the association; however, this case required a committee to examine the rules both in Thailand and abroad. The association admitted the engine was non‑compliant but stressed it is not the organizer; it will forward its findings to the organizer, as its mandate is limited to judging the rules. It added that a re‑race is unlikely; if the event breached the rules, the organizer must consider the outcome, noting that engine‑related protests are common in karting but should be resolved at the track. The association maintained it had not been indifferent and had made its decision based on the facts at hand. It said Nong Phayu’s team has the right to appeal, but believes the child’s parents are unlikely to pursue it, as they only wanted their son to race, while emphasizing that the right to protest exists in motorsport.
