WildWeasel wrote:
maybe its all about the built-in "adjustable" areas...

Um, Junebug made it very clear that one of the reasons he's moving is
because he wants to go to a **team that can win**.

So unless Mikey's got a new second job as Richard Childress's secretary, I'm
thinking that's a wasted call.

--pig


On 5/16/07 20:19, in article 2fba3$464b9f85$471efb44$26693 (AT) ALLTEL (DOT) NET,
"Gordon" <jimmygator (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

"Gordon" wrote ...
and I mis-typed when I said "I always struggle" I meant in the last 5 or 8
years. Before that the critical parts were essentially hand made or hand
finished by the guy that "had the touch" and making 2 alike was impossible -
similar was doable, but not identical ... then there *was* good and bad stuff.
But the mantra of nascar shops about 20 years ago, starting, I believe, with
Kenny Weld and his shop, became "repeatability" and first precision CNC
machining and then computerized modeling (CAD/CAM) replaced "that guy". They
would model and machine one, alter the model in a controlled way and machine a
second and compare the two. Then take the better and repeat the process - alter
the model in a controlled way and machine a third one and compare the two ...
all controlled, precise and repeatable. Now with analysis tools they can
simulate and test the design changes before they even machine them.

On May 16, 8:31 pm, "WildWeasel" <wweasel... (AT) zerospam (DOT) yahoo.com>
wrote:
I thought I heard a comment from one of the Roush drivers a while
back, indicating that the "top" drivers got better engines than the
ones who weren't so high in the standings. Maybe I misheard.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
It would not surprise me one bit for Jack Roush to do that to his drivers.

Larry

On Thu, 17 May 2007 07:57:46 CST, "WildWeasel" <wweasel_24 (AT) zerospam (DOT) yahoo.com> wrote in
<n7Odnb9a6be8zNHbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>:

Speaking as a theorist and Monday morning quarterback,
not as someone who has hands on experience, it seems to
me that all measurements come with an error bar (plus
or minus some percentage of the relevant units).

It may be that the error bars--the range of tolerable
errors--have shrunk all across the board for the
engine, transmission, and chassis, but I guess that
ganging of tolerances still causes some engines,
transmissions, and chassis to run better than others.

IF that is true (and I admit is a big IF), and IF they
can notice the differences (I imagine they test-run
what they build), then there might still be a pecking
order in the big shops.

I won't die if I'm proven wrong. I'll just go meditate
some more up near the Death Zone. ;o)

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote ...
There are tolerances, very tight tolerances, especially on critical measurements
and yes, when you put all the zillion pieces together there may be slight, ever
so slight, differences. But the real differences in driver talent, crew talent,
race decisions, race events ... and dumb luck, IMO, FAR FAR FAR outweigh in
significance any slight "best equipment" differences that may exist.

Not to say that they might not have an R&D car in the stable to try new ideas
under race conditions or a lease program that doesn't lease *quite* this week's
latest technology. But the equipment available to the 24 and 48 and 5 (and
maybe even the 25), for example, is, for all intents and purposes, identical,
IMO.

What purpose would it serve an owner to intentionally give one of your cars the
rejects every week?

Would Casey Mears be the points leader if he had driven the 24 car every race
this year?

Can a sophisticated shop like HMS turn out top quality engines and chassis for 4
teams?

If Jr. drove for HMS what sense would it be for him to be the R&D car?

None and no and absolutely and none.

IMO

"Retiredff" wrote ...
What purpose would it serve an owner to intentionally give one of his cars the
rejects every week?

"Retiredff" <lbatter (AT) bogfeet (DOT) net> wrote

If that's what you think, then you need to educate yourself about Roush
Racing, as does Nancy.

Roush policy is that each team receives the same equipment. Chassis,
engines, etc. There is no pecking order, with one exception. If there are
not enough pieces for all the teams, then teams higher in the point
standings have priority.

Hendrick Motorsports, however, DOES have a history of shifting resources to
preferred teams. This practice dates all the way back to when DW drove for
them, and Hendrick was taking cars, engines, etc. from Geoff Bodine & Gary
Nelson in an attempt to make DW a winner for him.

On Thu, 17 May 2007 13:11:15 CST, "WildWeasel" <wweasel_24 (AT) zerospam (DOT) yahoo.com> wrote in
<TcmdnSs6dbXsB9HbnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>:

IF (and I'm speaking from total ignorance here) there is a measurable
difference from one component to another, and IF you don't have the
budget to build an unlimited number of engines, transmissions, and
chassis, then it would make sense to me to distribute the best stuff
to the best of your teams.

IF there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the stuff,
then there isn't a judgment call to be made, I guess, and the
only difference between teams is what the driver & crew do
with it.

I'm sure CM would love to try. )

Yes.

Are there any sweetheart engines that come out of their shop,
despite their best efforts to control all the variables?

I don't know.

I'm sure Jr will get top-shelf stuff wherever he goes.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.