 | |
Knaus Recap
Nascar NASCAR and other professional stock car racing (rec.autos.sport.nascar)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Knaus Recap -
02-24-2006
, 01:55 PM
|
Nothing is recorded for 03 and 04. The next infraction is in 05 when the car did not meet height requirements after the race. Again I don't recall if they won that race. That team would join quite a few cars that have been hit with that BS penalty. |
both of the shock incidents. Hardly anything BS about that
Quote:
|
Then came the shock incident - which was somewhat notorious, but was perfectly legal. Nothing tainting about a legal race car. |
both of the shock incidents.
Quote:
|
Cru - I never distrust your stats, but they're clearly different from the AP release below. Maybe you can lend some insight into that. I just don't think Knaus has done that much once you really look back over the history of the fines they've received. |
Mike
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
the 48 and 5 cars had an unfair advantage, proven by their 1-2 finish in both of the shock incidents. Hardly anything BS about that Then came the shock incident - which was somewhat notorious, but was perfectly legal. Nothing tainting about a legal race car. the 48 and 5 cars had an unfair advantage, proven by their 1-2 finish in both of the shock incidents. what are you? A liberal? "That not fair <whine whine whine>" |
Did the #12 car have an unfair advantage when it needed one
less pit-stop than the rest of the field, which won it 8 races
in 2003. Or, were they just smarter than everyone else.
I seem to remember Bill Elliot was fuming after one race because
he clearly had the best car, but ol' Ryan just stayed out while
the field pit'ed. Meanwhile, Borland kept telling the race reporters
they'd be 10-laps short. They had to be laughing there a$$es off.
Was that fair? You bet it was! Nascar said that their car was
legal. Nascar stopped their success by switching to a different
tire which made pitting almost mandatory.
Were the hendrick shocks fair? You bet they were! Nascar stepped
in and stopped that for the same reason it stopped the #12.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
I doubt you could find anyone who would agree that anyone - big money or not, tells NASCAR what to do. The sponsors and the teams have a long way to go to outstrip the power of NASCAR. Ask yourself this question then. If big money isn't that powerful, why are there now 35 guaranteed starting spots. We used to have 8 provisionals with a new team having a very good chance of earning their way into races each week based on speed. Now you have maybe 8 spots and maybe 7 spots that they would even have a chance at getting. It is possible the 9th fastest car in qualifying could go home. That sure sounds like the power of big cash to me. Mark Mark, i have never assumed to answer for Mike Marlow, but let me add this |
NA$CAr headed off Franchising of Owners Teams by guaranteeing starting
by The Top 35.
It is much more fair than waiting for some of the regular T35 teams
using up their allotted provisionals, then one-off teams automatically make the race.
CRU
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
"armpit" <udontneedit (AT) myemail (DOT) addy> wrote in message news:43fe3762$0$12270$834e42db (AT) reader (DOT) greatnowhere.com... 6 Penalties at #48 HMS: 2in'02, 2in'03, 1in'05, 1in'06. 3 were Pre & 1-Post Qualifying, so 2 Post-Race. No Penalty at 9/05 Dover but prompted a Rule Change. So almost 1/3 (6 out of 19) of JJ's career wins are tainted? Way to go, Cheatin' Chad Knaus... According to the AP article below, there was 1 car infraction in 02 and the profanity infraction. If one wants to argue that the illegal bolts tainted the team, then I guess they can. I don't see how the profanity violation tainted any wins through. I really don't recall - did Johnson win the race in which the mounting bolts were an issue? If so - it was after repair, right? Therefore - no tainted race if the car was legal. Nothing is recorded for 03 and 04. The next infraction is in 05 when the car did not meet height requirements after the race. Again I don't recall if they won that race. That team would join quite a few cars that have been hit with that BS penalty. Then came the shock incident - which was somewhat notorious, but was perfectly legal. Nothing tainting about a legal race car. Cru - I never distrust your stats, but they're clearly different from the AP release below. Maybe you can lend some insight into that. I just don't think Knaus has done that much once you really look back over the history of the fines they've received. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net A timeline on Chad Knaus, including major penalties imposed by NASCAR since he became Jimmie Johnson's crew chief: JULY 11, 2002: Fined $25,000 for having improperly installed mounting bolts. The team also was docked 25 championship points and 25 owner points. JULY 23, 2002: Fined $5,000 for cursing during a live TV interview, NASCAR's first sanction for profanity. MARCH 15, 2005: Suspended two races and fined $35,000 because a winning car failed to meet the height requirement during a postrace inspection. The team also was docked 25 points. MARCH 23, 2005: National Stock Car Racing Commission overturned suspension and put Knaus on 90 days probation, but upheld fine and points penalty. SEPT. 30, 2005: NASCAR changes a rule regarding shock absorbers after Knaus exploited a loophole that caused Johnson's car to fail postrace inspection at Dover International Speedway. FEB. 12, 2006: Johnson's Daytona 500 qualifying time disqualified after car failed a post-qualifying inspection. FEB. 13, 2006: Suspended from the Daytona 500 for raising the rear window on Johnson's car to alter the aerodynamics during the team's qualifying run. The Associated Press |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
If u need specifics, i can & will provide them. Top posted cuz of unreliable folks like the A.P.(& Ndotcom), perhaps one of the reasons i do what i do, eh? |
Your toils do not go unnoticed or unappreciated.
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote in message news:903d5$43fe4145$4528960b$7436 (AT) ALLTEL (DOT) NET... "armpit" <udontneedit (AT) myemail (DOT) addy> wrote in message news:43fe3762$0$12270$834e42db (AT) reader (DOT) greatnowhere.com... 6 Penalties at #48 HMS: 2in'02, 2in'03, 1in'05, 1in'06. 3 were Pre & 1-Post Qualifying, so 2 Post-Race. No Penalty at 9/05 Dover but prompted a Rule Change. So almost 1/3 (6 out of 19) of JJ's career wins are tainted? Way to go, Cheatin' Chad Knaus... According to the AP article below, there was 1 car infraction in 02 and the profanity infraction. If one wants to argue that the illegal bolts tainted the team, then I guess they can. I don't see how the profanity violation tainted any wins through. I really don't recall - did Johnson win the race in which the mounting bolts were an issue? If so - it was after repair, right? Therefore - no tainted race if the car was legal. I think "tainted" needs to be cleared up if we're going to use it. IMO, tainted implies that they showed up with an illegal piece and presented it to NASCAR in hopes it would pass tech and be allowed to race. In that case, the u-bolts and this latest incident, indeed tainted the results for that weekend for that team. They blatently tried to skirt the rules in search of an advantage before they ever showed up at the track. That to me taints the results, even after the car is made legal, whether they win, or wreck out on lap 1. They showed up on Friday, knowing their piece was illegal, and just hoped it didn't get caught...can't get much more tainted than that. This isn't the Smokey Yunick or even Gary Nelson era, so innovation outside the intent of the rules is cheating today, plain and simple. Knaus is trying to follow in their and his own mentor's footsteps (or get fired to go to Evernham if one buys into the Jayski blurb on him earlier this week) and simply cannot. I was surprised at how quick HMS replied that Chad wasn't going anywhere when that last rumor surfaced tho... Nothing is recorded for 03 and 04. The next infraction is in 05 when the car did not meet height requirements after the race. Again I don't recall if they won that race. That team would join quite a few cars that have been hit with that BS penalty. Then came the shock incident - which was somewhat notorious, but was perfectly legal. Nothing tainting about a legal race car. If by legal you mean turning a blind eye to the "intent of the rule" aspect of the rules now, sure, it was perfectly legal. NASCAR just gave them a pass because their rules about the shocks didn't have enough fine print at the time. Just like the T-Rex car of Gordon's back in the day. Technically "legal" but was not allowed to race, and HMS was told never to bring it to another NASCAR race. I believe had they discovered the trick aspect of those shocks pre-race, they'd have been made to "fix it". Call me crazy, but if it would've needed fixing, it was hardly "perfectly legal". No, I say it was "technically legal", until the following weekend anyway. And "technically legal" is skating on thin ice when you have to weigh the "intent" of the rule nowadays. Cru - I never distrust your stats, but they're clearly different from the AP release below. Maybe you can lend some insight into that. I just don't think Knaus has done that much once you really look back over the history of the fines they've received. I would worry a LOT MORE about AP stats than I would Cru's, and I don't know Cru personally. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net A timeline on Chad Knaus, including major penalties imposed by NASCAR since he became Jimmie Johnson's crew chief: JULY 11, 2002: Fined $25,000 for having improperly installed mounting bolts. The team also was docked 25 championship points and 25 owner points. JULY 23, 2002: Fined $5,000 for cursing during a live TV interview, NASCAR's first sanction for profanity. MARCH 15, 2005: Suspended two races and fined $35,000 because a winning car failed to meet the height requirement during a postrace inspection. The team also was docked 25 points. MARCH 23, 2005: National Stock Car Racing Commission overturned suspension and put Knaus on 90 days probation, but upheld fine and points penalty. SEPT. 30, 2005: NASCAR changes a rule regarding shock absorbers after Knaus exploited a loophole that caused Johnson's car to fail postrace inspection at Dover International Speedway. FEB. 12, 2006: Johnson's Daytona 500 qualifying time disqualified after car failed a post-qualifying inspection. FEB. 13, 2006: Suspended from the Daytona 500 for raising the rear window on Johnson's car to alter the aerodynamics during the team's qualifying run. The Associated Press |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news  SrLf.42430$%84.8867 (AT) tornado (DOT) southeast.rr.com...This isn't the Smokey Yunick or even Gary Nelson era, so innovation outside the intent of the rules is cheating today, plain and simple. Not so plain and simple Sim. You're starting to sound like a NASCAR employee. Just exactly what does "innovation outside the intent of the rules" mean? What is the intent of the rules? The rules are constantly changed to encompass everything that is innovative, so what the hell is the intent of the rule? That quaint little line, direct out of the mouthpieces of NASCAR means absolutely nothing. Knaus is trying to follow in their and his own mentor's footsteps (or get fired to go to Evernham if one buys into the Jayski blurb on him earlier this week) and simply cannot. I was surprised at how quick HMS replied that Chad wasn't going anywhere when that last rumor surfaced tho... Out of one side of their mouths, even NASCAR themselves states they don't want to stiffle Crew Chiefs from being innovative and pushing the envelope, yet out of the other they continue to do exactly that. What is wrong with Knaus following in Ray's footsteps? If you think no other Crew Chief in NASCAR is doing exactly the same thing then you've got blinders on. I believe had they discovered the trick aspect of those shocks pre-race, they'd have been made to "fix it". Call me crazy, but if it would've needed fixing, it was hardly "perfectly legal". No, I say it was "technically legal", until the following weekend anyway. And "technically legal" is skating on thin ice when you have to weigh the "intent" of the rule nowadays. That's precisely the point Sim. The whole "intent" thing is pure BS. It's NASCAR's way of ensuring their hand over the teams even when beaten at their own game. -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net My goodness Marlow, u do have a way of 'splainin The Way It Is! |
CRU
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nothing is recorded for 03 and 04. The next infraction is in 05 when the car did not meet height requirements after the race. Again I don't recall if they won that race. That team would join quite a few cars that have been hit with that BS penalty. the 48 and 5 cars had an unfair advantage, proven by their 1-2 finish in both of the shock incidents. Hardly anything BS about that |
race. Several teams have been biten by that one.
Quote:
|
Then came the shock incident - which was somewhat notorious, but was perfectly legal. Nothing tainting about a legal race car. the 48 and 5 cars had an unfair advantage, proven by their 1-2 finish in both of the shock incidents. |
Bunch of no good cheaters out there.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.