[LSC9901]

Kyle Busch and Johnny Sauter's cars have been sited for height infractions. The 5 and 70 cars will be taken to the R&D center in NC and penalties will be announced on Tuesday !!!!!

[simple simon]

Kyle is currently 202 points away from being out of the chase ..... this could be very interesting ..... i doubt he will get more then 100, but still will put him close to being out

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by simple simon

Kyle is currently 202 points away from being out of the chase ..... this could be very interesting ..... i doubt he will get more then 100, but still will put him close to being out

I doubt it will be 100 points. From what was reported it didn't seem like a major infraction but then again you never know. With the COT rules they may just lay down the law.

[tkj24]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I doubt it will be 100 points. From what was reported it didn't seem like a major infraction but then again you never know. With the COT rules they may just lay down the law.

Bet it will be. It is a COT. Zero tolerance.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by tkj24

Bet it will be. It is a COT. Zero tolerance.

Since it is Shrub Jr I hope it is 500 points. Time will tell. I'm in agreement with the tolerance idea.

[JG24]

I think both will get 50 points docked off. i dont think the infraction was major enough for 100 points

[jks812]

I think it'll be the same 100 points and fine as the rest. They've shown that regardless of how severe or if intentionally done or not, the penalties are the same.

[wingkey1]

Height infraction perspective

Anyone who has turned wrenches doing actual pre-race chassis set up, and made changes to same during the race itself, is well aware that heights can be effected and affected by a fairly significant number of things/ways.

Many that are totally out of your control. Within bent/broken/failed/worn/stretched major and minor parts, mount points and join points alone, the number can get staggering. Upon examination it is possible, perhaps even likely, that "intentional or unintentional" can be determined.

The degree of penalty or whether there will be a penalty at all is a decision latitude that needs to be allowed for so long as it is desired to maintain a "team" sport classification (i.e. the teams continue to own and build cars and, within defined limitations, adjust to specific driver desire/style). A way (not desireable) to eliminate the question of cheat/intent would be to go to an IROC type approach. Equally prepared cars by an independent body (not driver/owner/team associated).

Of course "decision latitude" then requires "governing body". Meaning then that there will always be the chorus of the well meaning, but unfortunately in a number of cases terribly equipped, whiners - "Joe Racer got a raw deal compared to Harry Hotshoe for precisely the exact same infraction (ride height) cause Harry has distant relations to Race Commisioner George" - and on, and on, and on.

"But Chorus, we've already made efforts to show how ride height may well be negatively impacted by things totally out of human control. The same could occur were we even to go to an IROC type approach to the sport" - and Chorus responds:

"Joe Racer got a raw deal compared to Harry Hotshoe for precisely the exact same infraction (ride height) cause Harry has distant relations to Race Commisioner George"

Ugh!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Height infraction perspective

Anyone who has turned wrenches doing actual pre-race chassis set up, and made changes to same during the race itself, is well aware that heights can be effected and affected by a fairly significant number of things/ways.

Many that are totally out of your control. Within bent/broken/failed/worn/stretched major and minor parts, mount points and join points alone, the number can get staggering. Upon examination it is possible, perhaps even likely, that "intentional or unintentional" can be determined.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++
"Joe Racer got a raw deal compared to Harry Hotshoe for precisely the exact same infraction (ride height) cause Harry has distant relations to Race Commisioner George"

Ugh!

Hey, Wing... Do you, by any chance, remember this story? True, it doesn't concern the new car but...??? I'm still looking for a really good reason to NOT side with the "NASCAR loves Hendrick" people.

NASCAR.COM - Gordon's winning car fails Duels inspection - Feb 15, 2007

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Hey, Wing... Do you, by any chance, remember this story? True, it doesn't concern the new car but...??? I'm still looking for a really good reason to NOT side with the "NASCAR loves Hendrick" people.

NASCAR.COM - Gordon's winning car fails Duels inspection - Feb 15, 2007

Yup. Seem to recall it was attach point slot with "sawtooth" catch/indents from the additional info that came out afterwards. There's more accurate/appropriate term than "sawtooth". Purpose in any case was to allow quick move to higher or lower attach point (move up/down in/out to next indent) without fully removing bolt. Apparently 'twas determined that whomever tightened the puppy did not have bolt aligned fully in the desired indent so it slipped under load. Other possibility was that when tightened, it "rolled out" of the desired position. Please believe no one would intentionally rely on a tight bolt in the slot (rather than in an indent) at a "load" point. Also, when it slips, it's freequently ugly obvious.

Have worked with shock towers on little cars that had slotted upper mount point. Used serrated washer to grab and hold. A helpful hand got Armor All on the tower one time. Zip! Right to the top of the adjustment slot on pretty much the first turn. Driver decided the dragging frame rail had to be indicative of some form of problem/issue and came off. Smart boy.

[Mike24]

Isn't it weird how they pass pre-race inspection, but they fail post-race inspection? Hmmmmm

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Mike24

Isn't it weird how they pass pre-race inspection, but they fail post-race inspection? Hmmmmm

Nope. Fact is it is amazing more don't. It's testimony to just how well they know their profession., and how clueless other are.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Nope. Fact is it is amazing more don't. It's testimony to just how well they know their profession., and how clueless other are.

ya hang around a short track for any amount of time and ya realize that most races there's at least one car that's "settled" and won't meet minimum height - thing is they were checked with the same gauge by he same tech official before the race and passed! most crews and drivers know not to lean on the car before they turn it over for min height checks and to "pull up" on it as they step away....

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

ya hang around a short track for any amount of time and ya realize that most races there's at least one car that's "settled" and won't meet minimum height - thing is they were checked with the same gauge by the same tech official before the race and passed! most crews and drivers know not to lean on the car before they turn it over for min height checks and to "pull up" on it as they step away....

thing is they were checked with the same gauge by he same tech official before the race and passed - you bet, and many find that as a - "how in the world can that be?".


"pull up" on it as they step away - yeah, or at least "bounce 'er a bit" and watch to see if she seem to recover to mid travel. Always felt (but could never really substantiate) that the bar cars tended to settle or not return to mid travel more so than the coil overs. Had it in our mind (dangerous place for anything to reside) that there were more potential "drag / hang/slip" points in the bar mounts and ride/slide points for the bars. Always wanted to "pull up" on a bar car.