Hendrick cars

#31

"armpit" wrote in message

Quote:

"Anna Khonda" wrote in message

When nearly everyone and his brother talks
about how great it would be to see "the old man" finally get
one.

How great would it be if he got it because JJ got penalized?
and they can't have their sentimental fave backing into a title
on a penalty. It's just not good for the show.

But he wouldn't be "backing into it".
"IF" the 48 or any car was penalized, it would have meant that
they
did something wrong,
You "back into" something, when crappy circumstance
allows you to do so.
Like being a 20th place car, and being the only one staying on
the track when it starts to rain, and the race is called.
You "backed into" that.
If a guy gets a "bum call" on a penalty, that is one thing,
but if another gets caught cheating, then you were the one
that was legal, there is no "backing into" that one.

Plus, there are no asteriks.
If Martin won it, nobody in in 2 months will even remember
what happened.

Quote:

I want to know the rules as they are written, and not the
knucklehead-on-TeeVee version.

I could be wrong, but I thought most of the time when a reference
is
made, either on tv, or internet, that the rule is
quoted, as say "Rule 147, paragaraph 3".

Quote:

And I want to know the specs because, as a fan and former racer,
I find that stuff interesting, particularly in situations like
this when they come into question.

Well, we all want for some things every now and then.
I'm not sure that there are many forms of motorsports
where the "technical", meaning down to the actual part numbers
etc.,
are that readily available to those not directly involved..

And while I enjoy the same things that you do, I'm not sure
that we represent a large enough percentage of the viewing
audience
to change their policy
Plus, as I mentioned before, a lot of the stuff you are
talking about is not actually in the "rulebook".

#32

Quote:

Nope. I belive that that scenario is also possible. I just think because of
the initial report, and the conflicting ones that followed, there may be
more to it than the simple version. I'm not claiming to be right, nor am

It's entirely probable that the initial reports were written by
reporters who misinterpreted what was said or done. They aren't
infallible.

N.

#33

Nancy2 wrote:

Quote:

Nope. I belive that that scenario is also possible. I just think because of
the initial report, and the conflicting ones that followed, there may be
more to it than the simple version. I'm not claiming to be right, nor am

It's entirely probable that the initial reports were written by
reporters who misinterpreted what was said or done. They aren't
infallible.

N.

How does one misinterpret "NASCAR claims it was .006 over the tolerance." ?

Then later says "were extremely close" ?

NASCAR "claims", not some reporters, NASCAR.

#34

"Anna Khonda" <Anna_Khonda (AT) nospaming (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"armpit" wrote in message

"Anna Khonda" wrote in message

When nearly everyone and his brother talks
about how great it would be to see "the old man" finally get one.

How great would it be if he got it because JJ got penalized? and they
can't have their sentimental fave backing into a title on a penalty. It's
just not good for the show.

But he wouldn't be "backing into it".
"IF" the 48 or any car was penalized, it would have meant that they
did something wrong,
You "back into" something, when crappy circumstance
allows you to do so.
Like being a 20th place car, and being the only one staying on
the track when it starts to rain, and the race is called.
You "backed into" that.
If a guy gets a "bum call" on a penalty, that is one thing,
but if another gets caught cheating, then you were the one
that was legal, there is no "backing into" that one.

It's a matter of perception. There would always be those who would claim
"Jimmie woulda won it if Nascar hadn't screwed him because of a measly
..006". Nascar gave it to Martin."

Quote:

Plus, there are no asteriks.
If Martin won it, nobody in in 2 months will even remember
what happened.

Ask any long-time Martin fan about Dale Earnhardt's 1990 championship. That
was nearly twenty years ago, and most Martin fans still remember it.

#35

On Oct 8, 10:33 am, SG <spaamtrap... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

How does one misinterpret "NASCAR claims it was .006 over the tolerance." ?

Then later says "were extremely close" ?

To most reasonable people, a sheet of paper is
"extremely close."

#36

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 05:10:43 -0700 (PDT), Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 7, 4:30*am, "armpit" <armarmpit... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

I think the 48 was out of tolerance like we first heard, and that's why they
were told not to bring them back.

Think what you want to, but the cars were, and are, legal.
The 48 team hasn't been penalized since the spring of 07.
JJ is a 3-time champ and one of the best drivers in cup; they
don't need to cheat. If you drink a shot of whiskey, you'll
make it easier to swallow.

My only thoughts here are it is very unlikely that the only times the
48 team was caught were the ONLY times they were cheating. Jimmie is
a great driver and the 48 team is top-notch and shouldn't need to
"cheat" but three championships in a row and caught cheating more than
once, I dunno

#37

Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote in
news:97e7c538-faec-409a-96f6-c1c9d0f53129 (AT) r36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

On Oct 7, 5:24*pm, John McCoy <igop... (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:
Rick <pe... (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote
innews:254a5480-cf26-4eae-8290-f0c99856e768@l
34g2000vba.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?

Well, since NASCAR's recent history is to penalize teams
for paper-thin infractions, I'd say yes, NASCAR _is_
seriously going to penalize a team for a paper-thin
infraction. In fact, based on recent history they will
assess previously unheard of monetary and points penalties,
and probably ban the subject team for several weeks.

Or maybe they won't, thus proving that fairness is not high
on NASCAR's list of priorities.

John

#38

On Oct 8, 11:04 am, Mike Smith <dean.m... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

My only thoughts here are it is very unlikely that the only times the
48 team was caught were the ONLY times they were cheating.

You could make this statement about any team, not
just the #48. If anything, the 48 has been under
the microsope (e.g. taking their car from Kansas).

The Gibbs and Childress teams have been caught
cheating more in last couple of years than the
Hendrick teams.

#39

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

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.

Actually, his cylinder walls were probably fine. The engine had
been overheated, it had probably distorted the head, leading
to the valve pockets being oversize.

To accurately measure an engine to that tolerance, you'd have to
measure each of the 8 cylinders individually, and you'd have to
measure each of the 8 combustion chambers in the heads
individually, and sum the results. As I've noted elsewhere, I
have doubts that NASCAR can consistantly do that measurement to
that level of accuracy.

John

#40

"Anna Khonda" <Anna_Khonda (AT) nospaming (DOT) com> wrote in news:hakpta$m70$1
@aioe.org:

Quote:

Well, we all want for some things every now and then.
I'm not sure that there are many forms of motorsports
where the "technical", meaning down to the actual part numbers
etc.,
are that readily available to those not directly involved..

The NHRA, and I beleive SCCA, rulebooks are on-line or available
for purchase.

Note that many of NASCAR's engine "rules" are not actually in the
rulebook, but are in technical bulletins which are periodically
issued. That's why you usually see it as "parts, etc not conforming
to NASCAR rules" rather than a specific citation.

John