Hendrick cars

#21

On Oct 7, 3:39 pm, A. Jones <ajo... (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

You're arguing with some of the most diligent Hendrick/Gordon/Johnson
haters in RASN history, I feel your pain, but is .17 cubic inches
thicker than two sheets of copier paper?

I heard someone or read somewhere that the mearsurement
in question (.006 ?) was equivalent to a sheet or two
of paper.

#22

Nancy2 <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:3d34f08f-2dd9-4f78-ab72-04b1d8a34f1a (AT) o36g2000vbl (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

On Oct 7, 11:18*am, John McCoy <igop... (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:
Nancy2 <nancy-doo... (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote
innews:f6a396ac-b365-4a29-bdb3-cff6
a02f6a0f (AT) k26g2000vbp (DOT) googlegroups.com:

There wasn't anything illegal about the T-Rex car (#24) back in the
day, but that's another car Nascar said not ever to bring to a
track again.

NASCAR did eventually change the rules to make the T-Rex chassis
an illegal configuration.

John

Yeah, but. After the fact. ;-)

Well, I mean, I can't blame them for saying "we're going to make
this illegal just as soon as we get around to it, so don't go
forcing us to get in a rush about it".

John

#23

"armpit" <armarmpitpit (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:aeOdnQ7HDf3WTFHXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com:

Quote:

Whether they were legal or not is purely speculation/assumption. All
we know for certain is that they were Nascar approved.

By definition, NASCAR approved is "legal" in a NASCAR sanctioned
race.

Whether they were in exact compliance with the rule as stated
prior to the inspection is debateable. NASCAR does have a
history of creating rules as and when they need them.

John

#24

Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote in
news:254a5480-cf26-4eae-8290-f0c99856e768 (AT) l34g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

Even if the cars were off by a sheet of paper, are you
seriously going to penalize any team for that?

Are you really seriously asking that question?

Go look up "Carl Long", and come back when you have a more
detailed understanding of NASCAR's recent history.

John

#25

On Oct 7, 5:24*pm, John McCoy <igop... (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:

Quote:

Rick <pe... (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote innews:254a5480-cf26-4eae-8290-f0c99856e768 (AT) l34g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Even if the cars were off by a sheet of paper, are you
seriously going to penalize any team for that?

Are you really seriously asking that question?

My mother taught me that two wrongs don't make

a right. Nascar does what nascar does, but how
would you answer the "paper-thin" question?

#26

"A. Jones" <ajones (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

According to the only online conversion website I found that could
make the calculation, .17 cubic inches works out to 0.0001096772
inches in actual linear, one dimensional, length. That's how far off
Carl Long's cylinder walls were in thickness.

You can't convert a volume measurement to a linear measurement.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net

#27

"Rick" <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote

On Oct 7, 5:24 pm, John McCoy <igop... (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:

Quote:

Rick <pe... (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote
innews:254a5480-cf26-4eae-8290-f0c99856e768 (AT) l34g2000vba (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Even if the cars were off by a sheet of paper, are you
seriously going to penalize any team for that?

Are you really seriously asking that question?

My mother taught me that two wrongs don't make

a right. Nascar does what nascar does, but how
would you answer the "paper-thin" question?

=============

Any team? Of course not. Only the low-budget, single car teams like Carl
Long get the hammer laid down upon them for "sheet-of-paper" infractions.

#28

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"A. Jones" <ajones (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:m45qc5pmld310e4jv7qa3t03iuh5csjeta (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

According to the only online conversion website I found that could
make the calculation, .17 cubic inches works out to 0.0001096772
inches in actual linear, one dimensional, length. That's how far off
Carl Long's cylinder walls were in thickness.

You can't convert a volume measurement to a linear measurement.

<Gasp!>

#29

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

Quote:

Nancy2 <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:3d34f08f-2dd9-4f78-ab72-04b1d8a34f1a (AT) o36g2000vbl (DOT) googlegroups.com:

On Oct 7, 11:18 am, John McCoy <igop... (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:
Nancy2 <nancy-doo... (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote
innews:f6a396ac-b365-4a29-bdb3-cff6
a02f6a0f (AT) k26g2000vbp (DOT) googlegroups.com:

There wasn't anything illegal about the T-Rex car (#24) back in the
day, but that's another car Nascar said not ever to bring to a
track again.

NASCAR did eventually change the rules to make the T-Rex chassis
an illegal configuration.

John

Yeah, but. After the fact. ;-)

Well, I mean, I can't blame them for saying "we're going to make
this illegal just as soon as we get around to it, so don't go
forcing us to get in a rush about it".

John

Evernham said that the car wouldn't have been good for 500-600 mile race. He
had no intentions of using it for anything but the All-Star race.

My guess is that, although wicked fast, it was a hellacious handful to
drive, and JG woulda been worn out trying to drive it a full race distance.

#30

"A. Jones" <ajones (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:29:47 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote:

"A. Jones" <ajones (AT) intrtek (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:m45qc5pmld310e4jv7qa3t03iuh5csjeta (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

According to the only online conversion website I found that could
make the calculation, .17 cubic inches works out to 0.0001096772
inches in actual linear, one dimensional, length. That's how far off
Carl Long's cylinder walls were in thickness.

You can't convert a volume measurement to a linear measurement.

LOL!

The laugh of a lunatic.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net