Knaus Recap

#1

Knaus Recap
Total Fines: $99K.
Suspensions: a 2race, a 2race overturned, & a 4race.
Points deducted: 2 X 25pts.
Probations: a 90-day & a 10-month.

2 Penalties at #92 Melling Racing in 2001, Appeal Denied.

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.

1st to get a Point Deduction Penalty-7/02-D400.
1st to get a Profanity Penalty-9/02 Dover.
6 WINS in those 7 'Incidents' with #48 Jimmie Johnson!!
Only non-Win was his first 'incident' at 7/02-D400.

--
Crusader

#2

"Crusader" <cru32 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

Knaus Recap
Total Fines: $99K.
Suspensions: a 2race, a 2race overturned, & a 4race.
Points deducted: 2 X 25pts.
Probations: a 90-day & a 10-month.

2 Penalties at #92 Melling Racing in 2001, Appeal Denied.

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.

1st to get a Point Deduction Penalty-7/02-D400.
1st to get a Profanity Penalty-9/02 Dover.
6 WINS in those 7 'Incidents' with #48 Jimmie Johnson!!
Only non-Win was his first 'incident' at 7/02-D400.

--
Crusader

So almost 1/3 (6 out of 19) of JJ's career wins are tainted? Way to go,
Cheatin' Chad Knaus...

#3

He's not cheatin...he's 'aggressive'....

"armpit" <udontneedit (AT) myemail (DOT) addy> wrote

Quote:

"Crusader" <cru32 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:466ms5F9mt77U1 (AT) individual (DOT) net...
Knaus Recap
Total Fines: $99K.
Suspensions: a 2race, a 2race overturned, & a 4race.
Points deducted: 2 X 25pts.
Probations: a 90-day & a 10-month.

2 Penalties at #92 Melling Racing in 2001, Appeal Denied.

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.

1st to get a Point Deduction Penalty-7/02-D400.
1st to get a Profanity Penalty-9/02 Dover.
6 WINS in those 7 'Incidents' with #48 Jimmie Johnson!!
Only non-Win was his first 'incident' at 7/02-D400.

--
Crusader

So almost 1/3 (6 out of 19) of JJ's career wins are tainted? Way to go,
Cheatin' Chad Knaus...

#4

"armpit" <udontneedit (AT) myemail (DOT) addy> wrote

Quote:

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

#5

"Rick Davis" wrote ...

Quote:

He's not cheatin...he's 'aggressive'....

he's an ingenious massager of the rules!

#6

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

Quote:

"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...

Quote:

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.

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.

I would worry a LOT MORE about AP stats than I would Cru's, and I don't know
Cru personally.

Quote:

--

-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

#7

"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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

#8

"armpit" <udontneedit (AT) myemail (DOT) addy> wrote in news:43fe3762$0$12270
$834e42db (AT) reader (DOT) greatnowhere.com:

Quote:

So almost 1/3 (6 out of 19) of JJ's career wins are tainted? Way to go,
Cheatin' Chad Knaus...

So why does it surprise anybody that a punk driver has a punk crew chief?

#9

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote in
news:a7305$43fe5e60$4528960b$16071 (AT) ALLTEL (DOT) NET:

Quote:

It's
NASCAR's way of ensuring their hand over the teams even when beaten at
their own game.

What a telling statement THIS is. NASCAR is the race promoter. They make
the rules. Yet, the sponsors and teams have gotten so big and powerful that
they are the ones who tell NASCAR how to dance. And NASCAR changes it's
step continually, because big money tells them how it will be.

#10

"elaich" <a@b.c> wrote

Quote:

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote in
news:a7305$43fe5e60$4528960b$16071 (AT) ALLTEL (DOT) NET:

It's
NASCAR's way of ensuring their hand over the teams even when beaten at
their own game.

What a telling statement THIS is. NASCAR is the race promoter. They make
the rules. Yet, the sponsors and teams have gotten so big and powerful
that
they are the ones who tell NASCAR how to dance. And NASCAR changes it's
step continually, because big money tells them how it will be.

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.

--

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