According to Jayski, both Hendrick and Childress are appealing their penalties.
Childress had the brass to say the penalties against Berrier were "out of line". He's right. They were too light. I'd love to see the appeals board bring them into line for what a blatant and unrepentant cheater should get.
Hopefully, the suspensions against the Hendrick crew chiefs will be overturned.
Scott Stevenson 17 March 2005 00:43:55 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:54:48 CST, "Somebody" <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
"Bob Paxton" <redgreen43@hotmail.com> wrote in message>news:1110978999.331261.30390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>> According to Jayski, both Hendrick and Childress are appealing their>> penalties.>>
Childress had the brass to say the penalties against Berrier were "out>> of line". He's right. They were too light. I'd love to see the>> appeals board bring them into line for what a blatant and unrepentant>> cheater should get.>>
Hopefully, the suspensions against the Hendrick crew chiefs will be>> overturned.>>
If that's NASCAR's new stance on rules violations, I don't have a problem>with it. It's more severe than last year, which was more severe than the>year before. It's a clear violation, intentional or not. They just need to>build in more headroom to avoid it.
The problem (if I understand what you're saying) is that if you build in more "headroom" into the rules, that "headroom" would become the new standard that the teams would aim for.
Just as an example--if they set a minimum height rule, and allowed teams one inch of leeway, you're going to find most cars at the end of the race being 7/8" under the minimum height. If they made it two inches, most of the cars would end up being 1 7/8" under.
The RCR thing is different, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive the>officials to gain a particular advantage. I agree that NASCAR should come>down hard on such practices.
No argument there. Actually, as part of the penalty, I would have liked to see them implement the idea that DW had--start the race on the fuel they had when they qualified. Then tell them "no lucky dog, and you'll do all restarts from the end of the longest line".
almostfm.AMSPAY@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in news:423897a0.237438421@news.giganews.com:
The problem (if I understand what you're saying) is that if you build> in more "headroom" into the rules, that "headroom" would become the> new standard that the teams would aim for.>
Just as an example--if they set a minimum height rule, and allowed> teams one inch of leeway, you're going to find most cars at the end of> the race being 7/8" under the minimum height. If they made it two> inches, most of the cars would end up being 1 7/8" under.
I don't see what your point is. Regardless of how you word it, whether you say 54 inches exactly, or 54 1/4 with a 1/4 tolerance, or 56 with a 2 inch tolerance, there is a fixed point you may not be lower than. It behooves the crew chief to make sure he's not lower than that. That means he needs to know what might reasonably affect the height, and design and adjust his car to make sure that whatever happens (*), he stays above whatever that fixed point is.
Now, if they give some tolerance, and the crew chief figures he can control the height to a tighter tolerance, then by all means let him run within the tolerance zone. Maintaining tight tolerances is hard work; if someone will work that hard let them get some advantage from it.
John
(* jack bolts mysteriously backing out seems to be a uniquely Hendrick phenomenon; I would say they need to change their design to prevent that happening)
Scott Stevenson 17 March 2005 11:26:54 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:56:36 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
almostfm.AMSPAY@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in>news:423897a0.237438421@news.giganews.com: >
The problem (if I understand what you're saying) is that if you build>> in more "headroom" into the rules, that "headroom" would become the>> new standard that the teams would aim for.>>
Just as an example--if they set a minimum height rule, and allowed>> teams one inch of leeway, you're going to find most cars at the end of>> the race being 7/8" under the minimum height. If they made it two>> inches, most of the cars would end up being 1 7/8" under.>
I don't see what your point is. Regardless of how you word it,>whether you say 54 inches exactly, or 54 1/4 with a 1/4 tolerance,>or 56 with a 2 inch tolerance, there is a fixed point you may not>be lower than. It behooves the crew chief to make sure he's not>lower than that. That means he needs to know what might reasonably>affect the height, and design and adjust his car to make sure that>whatever happens (*), he stays above whatever that fixed point is.
Actually, that was my point. When someone talks about adding more "headroom" (which I took to mean "tolerance") in the standard, then the standard, plus the new tolerance, becomes what everybody shoots for. It really doesn't affect how many teams get hit for being in violation>
Now, if they give some tolerance, and the crew chief figures he>can control the height to a tighter tolerance, then by all means>let him run within the tolerance zone. Maintaining tight>tolerances is hard work; if someone will work that hard let them>get some advantage from it.
Concur.>John>
(* jack bolts mysteriously backing out seems to be a uniquely>Hendrick phenomenon; I would say they need to change their>design to prevent that happening)
I'm far from an expert on chasis design, so maybe you or somebody could enlighten me. Am I correct that the bolt passes through a fitting on the chasis, and applies pressue to some sort of plate on the top of the spring or some other suspension part? Turning the bolt would then either add or remove compression to the spring on that corner, and therefore change the amount of weight on that corner of the car.
What I'm wondering about is if you did something with the suspension that caused that corner to "unload", that would take compression out of the spring, and since the spring is pushing on the jack bolt, remove the compression from that as well. Since the bolt would then be relatively "loose" could it be vibrating, and causing it to back out?
Just SWAGing my way through a Wednesday evening, Scott
almostfm.AMSPAY@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in news:423b24f6.273623546@news.giganews.com:
Actually, that was my point. When someone talks about adding more> "headroom" (which I took to mean "tolerance") in the standard, then> the standard, plus the new tolerance, becomes what everybody shoots> for. It really doesn't affect how many teams get hit for being in> violation
OK, I see how you meant, now.
I'm far from an expert on chasis design, so maybe you or somebody> could enlighten me. Am I correct that the bolt passes through a> fitting on the chasis, and applies pressue to some sort of plate on> the top of the spring or some other suspension part? Turning the bolt> would then either add or remove compression to the spring on that> corner, and therefore change the amount of weight on that corner of> the car.
Yes, you have it exactly. The bolt bears on a "spring plate" which rests on the top of the coil spring.
What I'm wondering about is if you did something with the suspension> that caused that corner to "unload", that would take compression out> of the spring, and since the spring is pushing on the jack bolt,> remove the compression from that as well. Since the bolt would then> be relatively "loose" could it be vibrating, and causing it to back> out?
That could happen, and in fact occasionally does during a wreck. The usual result is the spring falls out and goes rolling down the track, since there's really nothing keeping it in place besides the weight of the car. I am inclined to doubt it could cause the jack bolt to back out, mostly because that doesn't seem to be a common problem; the only two times I can recall hearing of it was this one, and the incident w/ Jeff Gordon last year.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
