On Sep 24, 3:41 am, "armpit" <armarmpit... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Yep, people believe what they want to.

Whether is was intentional or not, the fact remains,
KyB raced a car that gave him an illegal advantage,
scoring him a top-5. This is indisputable, unless
you're an irrational idiot. If he had been in the
chase, the penalty would have been much greater.

In article Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote:


I don't know how you can say that matter of factly.

On Sep 24, 9:34 am, Chuck_St... (AT) nospam (DOT) com (Chuck Steak) wrote:
I don't know how you cannot. A low left front on
a left-turning flat track. Did you see the race.
KyB had a winning car. Who knows how bad the car
would have been if the left front wasn't illegally
low.

In article Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote:

yeah.. sort of.

I cannot and would not say matter of factly that a
low left front will make a car better,
because it isn't necessarily so...

On Sep 24, 10:03 am, Chuck_St... (AT) nospam (DOT) com (Chuck Steak) wrote:
Well, clearly, by itself, a low left front doesn't
guarantee a good car, but if the other car setup
variables are tuned to work with the illegal low
left front, there exist the potential to make the
car better. Would you agree with that?

In article Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote:

I would agree with that.
Because it is more accurate than just making the assumption
that a low left front automatically makes the car faster,
giving it an unfair advantage..

I think by the same token, you would have to agree
that if a suspension piece failed on a particular corner, allowing that
corner to drop say 1/8" below tech, which is pretty minimal,
that it is possible that the failure of the componant
was a greater hinderance, than the low corner was an advantage.

Having all of the pieces of the puzzle work together, is a lot more
advantageous, regardless of their theoretical correctness,
than having one piece at it's ultimate, yet out of balance with the rest..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan

I got a new Matco tool box for my wife.
Best trade I ever made...

Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote in news:87732249-4788-48f8-b341-34138d25b484
@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

No. You're still stuck in 2007 here.

If the left front _body_ is low, and the rest of the tuning is
setup to take advantage of that, then yes, it's an advantage.
But you'd have to do that before the race, you can't manipulate
the body that way on the fly. It's unlikely you could pass
pre-race inspection with the body altered that way.

If the left front _chassis_ was low, causing the body to measure
low, then the splitter would start hitting the ground, which would
be a disadvantage. You'd have to compensate for that by adjusting
to reduce dive under braking, and increase roll (to the right) in
the corner, both of which would probably be perceived by the
driver as making the car "handle bad".

Now, if we were still using the old "aero" car, then what you say
would be true; a low left front would almost always be beneficial.

John

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

Fantastic point, John.

On Sep 24, 11:18 am, John McCoy <igop... (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:
If true, why does nascar have height restrictions
for a car's front? Are these tolerances merely
holdovers from the "aero" car days?

I didn't notice the #18's splitter hitting the
ground, but your point is good.

In article Rick <pearl (AT) cray (DOT) com> wrote:

So that the cars will be the same...

a car could fit the template perfectly, yet have
a 10% (for example) less aero frontal area..
while the splitter is still 1/2" off the ground...
The template does not take into account height.
Only shape. That 's why there are height dimensions.