Simviation Forums

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.

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

things are suddenly much clearer

things are suddenly much clearer

Much like the beer in question.


Matt

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

'Nascar sucks'



TSC.

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

'Nascar sucks'



TSC.

Hehe I was also thinking that when I read this  :D

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.  

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...

[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.  

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Like golf.

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