[Bob Tanner]

QUOTE=Racer Duck;144195]thought I answered that .. maybe it was another thread - there are so many!!!

1/8 inch lower on a left front fender on a 1 mile track isn't much of an advantage, but it's still some advantage. hardly enough to take a chance of missing the race over. (I do not think Brian's crew did anything wrong, this is one of those mysterious parts failures that happen every now and then .. IMHO)[/quote]

WHOA!!!

If this is founded to be a fact... Didn't the EXACT same thing happen with Jeffy'Pooh's car in a race earlier this season? Weren't mounting bolts on a shock "accidentally" mounted incorrectly, rounded out the mounting holes, allowing the car to drop below illegal limits. But NASCAR determined that "there was no intent to cheat so Jeffy got a free pass, was able to pass Go and collect his $200.

Let's see; Jeffy car is a Car owned by an owner whose name starts with H-E-N. Vicker's car is owned by a guy whose name starts with B-A-H.(David Bahar; Red Bull)

Let's see: Jeffy's teammate, recently found in foul territory, has a crew chief who has seven (count 'em;1-2-3-4-5-6-7!) fines for illegal behaviour in the past five years. Vickers has a crew chief who has been in the sport for over twenty years and who can tell me when the last time was he fell afoul of NASCAR's rules?

Damn it, NASCAR! Would you PLEASE give me a reason to continue to argue against these ABG's (Anybody but Gordon fans) who maintain NASCAR shows favouritism!? Don't look now but your credibility is slipping!

[Mike24]

NASCAR did NOT send Vickers home because of the 1/8 fender rule. He was sent home after the infraction because he is not in the top 35. If Vickers was in the top 35, he would have been sent to the back of the field like Gordon was in the Daytona 500. NASCAR disqualified Vickers' qualifying run, therefore Vickers was sent home because he isn't in the top 35.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Mike24

NASCAR did NOT send Vickers home because of the 1/8 fender rule. He was sent home after the infraction because he is not in the top 35. If Vickers was in the top 35, he would have been sent to the back of the field like Gordon was in the Daytona 500. NASCAR disqualified Vickers' qualifying run, therefore Vickers was sent home because he isn't in the top 35.

No fooling? Jeffy's similar "incident" was found after a race (a infinitely more serious occurrence than after qualifying, wouldn't you say?). He got a complete pass (kept win, kept money, kept points and raced the following race), while Vickers goes home with no chance to make money, (want to lay some odds that he'll get fined; what was Jeffy's fine again; I forget <g>), no chance for points.

My feelings haven't changed one iota.

If you're one of The Chosen, you can race, no matter what. You can effectively make your own rules.
If you aren't one of The Chosen, you go home.

It's blatantly W-R-O-N-G!

My arguement IS NOT over whether Vickers should be sent packing or not, that's NASCAR's call and I could care less. My ***** is why is he being treated differently than other, more popular drivers and teams? If only he could just sell more Tee-shirts. Maybe that'd help?

NASCAR's Protection of Favored Team Owners and Favourite Drivers Act strikes again. It is just plain toro ca-ca!

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

No fooling? Jeffy's similar "incident" was found after a race (a infinitely more serious occurrence than after qualifying, wouldn't you say?). He got a complete pass (kept win, kept money, kept points and raced the following race), while Vickers goes home with no chance to make money, (want to lay some odds that he'll get fined; what was Jeffy's fine again; I forget <g>), no chance for points.

My feelings haven't changed one iota.

If you're one of The Chosen, you can race, no matter what. You can effectively make your own rules.
If you aren't one of The Chosen, you go home.

It's blatantly W-R-O-N-G!

My arguement IS NOT over whether Vickers should be sent packing or not, that's NASCAR's call and I could care less. My ***** is why is he being treated differently than other, more popular drivers and teams? If only he could just sell more Tee-shirts. Maybe that'd help?

NASCAR's Protection of Favored Team Owners and Favourite Drivers Act strikes again. It is just plain toro ca-ca!

BT I'm hopin (dreaming? - to be seen) there's some kind of "line in the sand" with the new car. I've tried to do the "erase" in the mind (be nice to me now - you could with complete fairness suggest I meant/said "of the mind" - ah, forget the nice crap) of history, and watch closely the equality in the penalties associated with the new car.

I've further pledged to not judge that which I do not clearly understand, fully recognizing that this pledge may just have to be broken as I tend towards denying knowledge of near anything. Some call it "humble". So fuzzy and warm. So crap filled.

I stray. I think (dangerous) that new car decisions are/have been consistent. Must/will give that these are as yet few in number.

OBTW your note/post on the "straight line between template touch points" (another thread I believe) was spot on (Aussie talk) and significant. I like/agree with the sanctioning body's position on this. Stray not.

OK back to main point - I'se watchin' the consistency in new car decisions without being influenced by the past. Tough consistent so far.Future opinion - TBD

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

I stray. I think (dangerous) that new car decisions are/have been consistent. Must/will give that these are as yet few in number.

OBTW your note/post on the "straight line between template touch points" (another thread I believe) was spot on (Aussie talk) and significant. I like/agree with the sanctioning body's position on this. Stray not.

OK back to main point - I'se watchin' the consistency in new car decisions without being influenced by the past. Tough consistent so far.Future opinion - TBD

I agree with the consistency of the rule decisions on the new car. What I object to is the cavalier way NASCAR hands out the penalties.
Side note: In my previous post in this thread I compared Jeff Gordon's peccadillo with the mounting bolts as an example and in NO WAY was a shot at Jeffy himself. The kid is one of NASCAR's greatest; he just works for a complete schmuck but that's another story.

One of the reasons I, and I honestly believe many others, feel that NASCAR is inconsistent with its penalties is that it involves the arbitrary and poorly-thought out "Chosen 35" system. This piece-of-thrash rule sets a line in the sand that clearly delineated a caste system within NASCAR that has absolutely zilch, nothing, zero, nada, rien to do with competition and everything to do with protecting the major car owners and the most popular drivers.

On the straight line decision, I've heard numerous reports that NASCAR first declared the #'s 24 and 48 legal, then rescinded the decision. According to John Darby this concept came from the crew chiefs of not only the two offending cars but of several cars, and was reported thusly by Larry McReynolds and Jeff Hammond on TNT. (TNT apparently couldn't do a thing right during last week's "TNT's Future Shows Promotion" (Oops. Race coverage; I got confused), why should we think that TNT'd get breaking news right?
The idea that "first they're legal, then they're not," came from the argument that Knaus and Letarte gave that the cars indeed did meet the touch points on the templates. What they didn't explain was why these "legal" cars were over one inch outside of the direct line between the points. McReynolds and Hammond jumped on this like white on rice because,, like Knaus, Letarte and many other crew chiefs, they have a "cheater's mentality," if it doesn't specifically say we can't do it, then we must be able to.
I heard a great argument for this last train of thought given by a media person this week: "I can guarantee you that nowhere in the rule book will you find that NASCAR specifically forbids welding a machine gun turret on your car's front fenders either, but trust me, it's NOT LEGAL!"

NASCAR's desire, IRT the new car, is for races to won by drivers on the track, not won by aero-engineers in some wind tunnel. I applaud them for that. Now, just hand out the suspensions, fines and ejecting from races with a little more equality.

Sorry about the rant but this subject gets on my very last good nerve!

[Nevadastars]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Sorry about the rant but this subject gets on my very last good nerve!

No need for apologies Bob. I completely agree with you, and I'm sure there are thousands of other fans that do as well. The problem is, is it will never change as long as the almighty dollar is in control of Na$car. The rules should be cut and dried, you show up at a track with an intentionally illegal car..............you go home, no matter who you are or your position in the standings.

[Mike24]

An intentionally illegal car? Hmmm, NASCAR must have made up that rule after seeing the 24 and 48 cars on Thursday, saying they were legal. "Well boys, we will fail them on friday." NASCAR should have told them straight up the car was illegal and you need to change it, and we wouldn't be talking about this. But what a shocker, NASCAR fails them after telling Hendrick false information. Sorry, I know some of you like to jump all over NASCAR for supposedly showing favoritism, but not this time. NASCAR showed their inconsistency within the rules package. In my opinion, it's time for the rules to be cleary written, instead of being clearly confusing.

As far as Vickers is concerned, his car was too low. So NASCAR disqualifies him, but he wasn't in the top 35 so he was sent home. This has nothing to do with the infraction. NASCAR handed out 1 penalty to Vickers, which they disqualified his qualifying time. Since Vickers isn't in the top 35, he had to go home because of the DQ. I don't see any evidence proving NASCAR showing favoritism. Vickers penalty was different than the 24 and 48's, so they shouldn't be compared. As far as Gordon's penalty in the 500, lets remember Gordon was in the top 35, so he was still able to race, but NASCAR sent him to the back. NASCAR did the same thing with Vickers, they disqualified his qualifying time. But Vickers wasn't in the top 35 in owner points, and he had to go home because of that, not because NASCAR sent him home. Just clearing that up

[jks812]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

On the straight line decision, I've heard numerous reports that NASCAR first declared the #'s 24 and 48 legal, then rescinded the decision. According to John Darby this concept came from the crew chiefs of not only the two offending cars but of several cars, and was reported thusly by Larry McReynolds and Jeff Hammond on TNT. (TNT apparently couldn't do a thing right during last week's "TNT's Future Shows Promotion" (Oops. Race coverage; I got confused), why should we think that TNT'd get breaking news right?
The idea that "first they're legal, then they're not," came from the argument that Knaus and Letarte gave that the cars indeed did meet the touch points on the templates. What they didn't explain was why these "legal" cars were over one inch outside of the direct line between the points.

Fianlly, somebody said where this info came from.
So this thing about the cars were legal one day and not the next, that someone keeps talking about, bascially came from the cheating crew chiefs, Hammond and McReynolds? Well no wonder I couldn't find anywhere that Hendrick had said that.

[Mike24]

Originally Posted by jks812

Fianlly, somebody said where this info came from.
So this thing about the cars were legal one day and not the next, that someone keeps talking about, bascially came from the cheating crew chiefs, Hammond and McReynolds? Well no wonder I couldn't find anywhere that Hendrick had said that.

I heard it from ESPN. I have no knowledge of whether Hammond or McReynolds exploited this as well.

[jks812]

Originally Posted by Mike24

I heard it from ESPN. I have no knowledge of whether Hammond or McReynolds exploited this as well.

Gordon would like to avoid that shock again, particularly during the Championship Chase when a points deduction could be catastrophic. He said HMS actually requested that NASCAR scan the bodies of the cars prior to arriving at the track to certify them just as they do the chassis at the Research and Development Center in Concord, N.C.
Darby laughed, saying there isn't anybody that can fabricate a body within the tolerance of what a scan will show.
"If we start scanning cars it'll make our tolerances of a plus or minus an eighth or plus or minus a quarter ... look like they're pretty darn good," he said. "When you start scanning stuff you see areas that are off by a thousandth of an inch."


Is this what ya'll mean by they took them to the nascar center to be checked one day and they were legal and not legal the next day?
Because from that sounds like HMS asked them to do that and Nascar said they can't.
That was from ESPN website.

[LSC9901]

This idea that the cars passed one day and failed the next seem to only have the backing of a couple of TV wizards. This is how false stories perpetuated by the media get way out of control. On a couple of occasions on these threads it was asked to have this information verified by a link to where it was officially stated that these events occurred.

Jeff Hammond and Larry MacReynolds may have been good crew chiefs but TV announcers they are not and any wealth of information that they might bring to the table should be examined for ecoli.

Bovine scatologists they are !!

[Mike24]

Originally Posted by jks812

Gordon would like to avoid that shock again, particularly during the Championship Chase when a points deduction could be catastrophic. He said HMS actually requested that NASCAR scan the bodies of the cars prior to arriving at the track to certify them just as they do the chassis at the Research and Development Center in Concord, N.C.
Darby laughed, saying there isn't anybody that can fabricate a body within the tolerance of what a scan will show.
"If we start scanning cars it'll make our tolerances of a plus or minus an eighth or plus or minus a quarter ... look like they're pretty darn good," he said. "When you start scanning stuff you see areas that are off by a thousandth of an inch."


Is this what ya'll mean by they took them to the nascar center to be checked one day and they were legal and not legal the next day?
Because from that sounds like HMS asked them to do that and Nascar said they can't.
That was from ESPN website.

So wait a minute, the rulebook says if you are unsure of whether your car is legal or not, you can bring it to NASCAR for a further inspection. Now all of the sudden you can't? Hmmmm, looks like NASCAR is making up the rules again.

[jks812]

Originally Posted by Mike24

So wait a minute, the rulebook says if you are unsure of whether your car is legal or not, you can bring it to NASCAR for a further inspection. Now all of the sudden you can't? Hmmmm, looks like NASCAR is making up the rules again.

Don't know if the rule book said that or not. And I guess you are right they are changing the rules as they go just so that they can penalize the Hendrick cars, ain't it great. Well so they can penalize the 24 and 48, since the other 2 passed.

[Mike24]

Originally Posted by jks812

Don't know if the rule book said that or not. And I guess you are right they are changing the rules as they go just so that they can penalize the Hendrick cars, ain't it great. Well so they can penalize the 24 and 48, since the other 2 passed.

I'm not saying NASCAR is changing the rules to penalize HMS. It seems fishy how NASCAR states you can take the cars to them for an inspection, but all of the sudden you can't? Sorry, but that throws more ammunition on the fact NASCAR is changing the rules as they go with this car. Plus NASCAR stated as long as the cars fit the templates, the cars are legal. But wait, NASCAR makes up another excuse saying the fenders are 1/8 outside the line? Hmmmm, interesting how they decide to change the rule after Hendrick brought the cars to NASCAR. NASCAR needs to make up their minds instead of confusing these teams with these inconsistent rules.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

This idea that the cars passed one day and failed the next seem to only have the backing of a couple of TV wizards. This is how false stories perpetuated by the media get way out of control. On a couple of occasions on these threads it was asked to have this information verified by a link to where it was officially stated that these events occurred.

Jeff Hammond and Larry MacReynolds may have been good crew chiefs but TV announcers they are not and any wealth of information that they might bring to the table should be examined for ecoli.

Bovine scatologists they are !!

passed one day and failed the next - is true/accurate, but (There's always, seemingly, a but) one has to examine this perhaps a bit closer.

When the template (referred to at times as "The Claw") is/was dropped on the vehicles in question, the vehicles "passed" in that all of the touch points of the claw/template were proper/appropriate/in spec and a clear straight "line of sight" existed between the touch points, i.e. the body did not rise/bulge to interrupt the "line of sight" between the template touch points or fall away from the same line of sight greater than the defined tolerance (1/8 inch has been referred to but we are not sure if that is indeed the official +/-).

With the alterations that resulted in failure on the 24 & 48, the failing cars would and did still "pass" at the touch points of the claw but because the body had been altered so as to break the "line of sight" between the template touch points --- failure.

The vehicles in question indeed passed one day, then failed the next using the same unit of measure (The Claw). The statement however considers only the touch points and not the line of sight between the touch points.

That make any sense? Hope so.