ok I dont understand nascar

With a lot of interest in Auto's here, only wingless machines please!

ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Craig. » Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:25 am

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news;_yl ... &type=lgns

So drivers/crew cheat, NASCAR does the right thing by suspending and docking points, and all the pitlane gets upset? What kind of message does this send to people when the drivers publicly come out against penalties for cheating?
I can sort of understand if a piece fails inspection because of a mistake, but finding what amounts to jet fuel to give a clear advantage should get a team thrown out of the competition all together.
User avatar
Craig.
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 15569
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 10:04 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby ozzy72 » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:12 am

Your problem is this Craig, you've got to accept that you;
1) are not a redneck.
2) don't have the IQ of a pot plant.
3) don't like eating hotdogs that have never seen a pig.
4) enjoying drinking cat pee and claiming it is beer.

Hope this helps ;) ;D
Image
There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!
User avatar
ozzy72
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 33284
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 4:45 am
Location: Madsville

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Craig. » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:18 am

things are suddenly much clearer ;D
User avatar
Craig.
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 15569
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 10:04 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby expat » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:48 am

things are suddenly much clearer ;D


Much like the beer in question.


Matt
"A bit of a pickle" - British translation: A catastrophically bad situation with potentially fatal consequences.

PETA Image People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 (Cat C) licenced engineer, Boeing 737NG 600/700/800/900 Airbus A318/19/20/21 and Dash8 Q-400
1. Captain, if the problem is not entered into the technical logbook.........then the aircraft does not have a problem.
2. And, if you have time to write the fault on a napkin and attach to it to the yoke.........you have time to write it in the tech log....see point 1.
User avatar
expat
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 8679
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:06 am
Location: Deep behind enemy lines....

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby TSC. » Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:22 pm

Didn't Sunday's Top Gear teach you anything Craig??

'Nascar sucks'

;D

TSC.
Image

'Only two things are infinite.......The Universe and Human stupidity........and I'm not too sure about the Universe' - Einstein
User avatar
TSC.
Major
Major
 
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Torquay, Devon, England.

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Souichiro » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:07 pm

Didn't Sunday's Top Gear teach you anything Craig??

'Nascar sucks'

;D

TSC.



Hehe I was also thinking that when I read this  :D
Image
User avatar
Souichiro
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:34 am

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Mushroom_Farmer » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:13 pm

Wellllllllllllllll, when you choose to run what basically amounts to a spec series, which relies on talent and not performance and you have little talent, I guess the next step is to cheat.
Now with that said, what I don't understand is how the officials can O.K. the the car in tech before the run and it fails after the run. It seems the whole NASCAR inspection process needs an overhaul. Why not have it that after going through tech you cannot touch the car except for weather related adjustments under the scrutiny of an official.
In Evernham's case, he did excatly what the officials told him to do. Even though his duct tape patch didn't hold I feel that was a bad judgement on NASCAR's part since they gave instructions for the fix.
Why not ban the whole team, including driver, from competing when found cheating. That would probably send a stronger message.
You should know I don't watch NASCAR.  
Image

"We're just sitting here trying to put our PCjrs in a pile and burn them. And the damn things won't burn. That's the only thing IBM did right with it - they made i
User avatar
Mushroom_Farmer
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Chris_F » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:45 pm

I don't know how much of that is an actual consensus on pit lane that the penalties were unfair and how much of that was just creative journalism.  Certainly not ALL fans of the sport want to see cheating.

I know this is a forum that dislikes all things American, and I certainly have never been a NASCAR fan (just can't seem to keep my eyes open watching lap after lap of roundy-round waiting for a crash) but it is apparent that NASCAR is a very high level of racing and its level of professionalism is on the increase.  They even have some ex-F1 tallent and a foreign name plate on the grid now.

So, before we start slinging the redneck comments perhaps we should watch a few rounds of FIA Rallycross...
Chris_F
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:59 pm

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Chris_F » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:47 pm

[quote]  Now with that said, what I don't understand is how the officials can O.K. the the car in tech before the run and it fails after the run. It seems the whole NASCAR inspection process needs an overhaul. Why not have it that after going through tech you cannot touch the car except for weather related adjustments under the scrutiny of an official.  
Chris_F
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:59 pm

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Mushroom_Farmer » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:09 am

It's conceiveable that a car which passes tech before a race or qualifying run would not pass tech after.  For example, (and I believe this has been done) a bolt could be installed to keep ride height up to pass tech which is designed to fail on the track lowering the car to an illegal level.  Or any other iteration of the same.


Well that's true. It's also the kind of thing the tech people are supposed to be looking for. Maybe if bolts for certain parts were a specific grade that might help. In the case you presented, I would say it was a part failure and disallow the time. I see no reason for fines and suspensions. In Evernhams case there were apparantly some holes in the fender well, which is something not mentioned anywhere in the rules. NASCAR told him to tape over the holes, which he did. During qualifying the tape fell off, as hard as that is to believe.  ::) So NASCAR fines Evernham, IMO, for doing what he was told to do by the officials. This brings up another point. If you are smarter than the rules makers and find something not addressed in the rules that gives a little edge, is that cheating or innovation? It seems F-1's opinion is "The boy is smart, we'll allow it for now".
I remember Bobby Allison's rear bumper falling off in the 1982 Daytona race. It was deemed improperly positioned before the race and the crew supposedly did a rush job relocating it. Without a rear bumper Allison's car had less drag and ran away from the field, but no fines or suspensions were levied. Gary Nelson, who is now one of the heads of NASCAR's inspection crew, was Allison's crew chief.
Image

"We're just sitting here trying to put our PCjrs in a pile and burn them. And the damn things won't burn. That's the only thing IBM did right with it - they made i
User avatar
Mushroom_Farmer
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Chris_F » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:22 am

In the case of the bolt I believe the officials saw that it was partially cut through with a die grinder or saw before it was installed.  So there was definate intent for that part to fail.  Still, I don't know if the car was disqualified or penalized in any way, but it did cause them to institute a post race/qualifying inspecion.

If you are smarter than the rules makers and find something not addressed in the rules that gives a little edge, is that cheating or innovation? It seems F-1's opinion is "The boy is smart, we'll allow it for now".


I guess that fits with the Renault mass damper thing, the Michelin widening tire thing, the only one I don't see fitting that is the Honda mini-gas tank thing.  Certain interpretations of the rules would have shown Honda to be compliant but IIRC they were fined and penalized heavily for something that may never even have been in violation of the rules (minimum weight).  It was only POTENTIALLY in violation.  So F1 has its share of "debateable" penalties.
Chris_F
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:59 pm

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Craig. » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:37 pm

s far as F1 is concerned.
technology develops so quick in the sport, and the rules have staid almost the same now for the past 10 years, with a few update every now and again.
The big one now being ferrari and other teams rear wheel hubs. For all intents they are illeagal, but for some reason they've found a way of allowing it. Same for why as mentioned by chris, renault got away with their mass damper system.
I have to disagree about hondas penalty though.
The rules state a car and driver MUST weight 600kg combine empty car weight. hondas car didn't weight it empty period. It doesn't matter about some small gas tank, that counts as part of the car having to be empty.
Last edited by Craig. on Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Craig.
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 15569
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 10:04 am
Location: Birmingham

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Mushroom_Farmer » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:53 pm

I kind of miss the Indy 500 back in the old days(pre-1980). One saw all sorts of strange and original machines entered.

In F-1, I thought they always had a standardized fuel tank size rule. I learned something today.  :o
Image

"We're just sitting here trying to put our PCjrs in a pile and burn them. And the damn things won't burn. That's the only thing IBM did right with it - they made i
User avatar
Mushroom_Farmer
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 11:54 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby beaky » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:11 pm

NASCAR is on my list of things That Would Be Way More Fun to Do Than to Watch...

Like golf.

;D
Image
User avatar
beaky
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Shenandoah, PA USA

Re: ok I dont understand nascar

Postby Ivan » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:14 pm

Some of the above sounds like the 'first year after end of group B termination' Lancia Delta HF... met the horsepower restriction on the dyno... but went way over it when driving
Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones),  Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and [url=http://an24.uw.hu/]An-24RV[/ur
Ivan
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 5805
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:18 am
Location: The netherlands

Next

Return to Autos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 344 guests