Sixty8kr wrote:> Never heard how they were caught. I do know that they were in the> inspection process for q'ing in the top 5.
from foxsports.com (by DW): ================= NASCAR has a new rule that requires teams to qualify with a full load of fuel so the officials topped off the cars after qualifying to see how much fuel each car took before going across the scales with the proper amount of weight in them. When they tried to put fuel in the 29 car, it wouldn't take any fuel. The gas man at the pumps told NASCAR that all of the other cars took a gallon to two gallons of fuel, but the 29 car wouldn't take any fuel after making a qualifying run. NASCAR knew something must be up. They started looking at the fuel cell and the filler neck and realized that the 29 crew had tried to trick them into thinking that the car was full of fuel when, in fact, it wasn't. ================ full story at http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/3465572
I totally agree with his penalty idea: ================ And, oh by the way, to answer your question... I said that NASCAR could have told Harvick, "You want to qualify with only four gallons of fuel in your car, well guess what dude, you can start the race with those four gallons." That would have been a self-inflicted penalty because the 29 team would have had to come in to pit very early in the race. I thought that could have been part of the penalty as well. ===============
Martin X. Moleski 17 March 2005 15:26:48 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:13:12 CST, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote:
... Truth is, they used to be benevolent dictators but now have become>omniscient dictators with zero input from drivers, crew chiefs, owners>or fans.
I imagine reality a bit differently from you, Cru.
Here's how I'd bet all of my RPG winnings: NASCAR listens to these people in this order (more or less):
The family stockholders or partners in the bidness friends technical advisors TV execs owners employees drivers sponsors consultants media talent fans
They got to keep the customers satisfied--and they've got a lot of different customers.
I don't know where Brian France got The Chase, but I don't think he developed the idea all by hisself. Same with all of this year's new rules.
If someone's got a better formula than NASCAR, they'll take the pot away from them. But (at least so far) I don't see a viable competitor on the horizon for this kind of racing. I do think that the little tuners are going to steal a lot of the young audience away from the behemoths in Formula NASCAR.
malonekath@aol.com wrote in news:1111012537.227665.68720 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
I totally agree with his penalty idea:> ================> And, oh by the way, to answer your question... I said that NASCAR could> have told Harvick, "You want to qualify with only four gallons of fuel> in your car, well guess what dude, you can start the race with those> four gallons." That would have been a self-inflicted penalty because> the 29 team would have had to come in to pit very early in the race. I> thought that could have been part of the penalty as well.> ===============>
race what you brung.>
Katharine>
and make them start the race with the capped off filler neck. That would teach them... when the 4 gallons of fuel runs out the would have to take it to the garage to install a functional filler neck!
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:23:13 CST, malonekath@aol.com wrote:>
thanks raceguy and Cru--I am hoping neither of you are pulling my
on this as I am really trying to be a good newbie to the group.>
I sometimes act as a self-appointed interpreter for cru. I'm quite> certain he meant what he said. You won't have any difficulty> figuring out when cru is seriously disagreeing with you. :o)
thanks for the interpretation!
And, of course, all of his stats are ac-cru-ate.
indeed they are. I've actually been lurking here since I started following NASCAR in June and Cru's stats have been very useful to drop into conversation with our race-goinng group.
The AP story says that the trend since 2002 is to raise the> stakes for rules violations. NASCAR seems to be hunting> for the right-size hammer. My own guess is that they will> probably not use the nuclear option in my lifetime (taking> away the win). They've got lots that they can do with the> points system to motivate compliance.
I think that the nuclear option will be used in our lifetimes on a team which just won't stop cheating. I also think the use of that option will be facilitated by the amount of publicity it will bring NASCAR. I mean, _The New York Times_ covered last week's suspensions. imagine how much coverage NASCAR would get for taking a victory away for cheating. instead of making headlines because its participants beat up fans (and then appeal and get their punishments reduced), NASCAR could get headlines for punishing cheaters.
I hope it doesn't happen because it is not good for the sport, but I can see how the planets might neatly align.
I gotta feeling it's gonna happen in '05 or '06 at the latest.> But i just wonder if only the #29 was caught at LV, would there> be much outcry at all?>
I think it's that 3 fouls were called, all different, all prominent teams, 1 nose thumbing at nascar, 2 ...???, and throwin' in nascar's penchant for arbitrary illogical fines and penalties ... and you have the perfect storm.
You weren't implying it was a RCR/HMS thing, were u? Just the 29, no cause for outcry. Same, in my mind, if just the 5 or just the 48. The combo platter of 3 fouls and situations, however ...
On 2005-03-18 05:14:41 -0500, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> said:
Yup, MXM is pretty good at interpretation of the Obscure(Obs-cru-e) One Cru.> Katherine, didn't mean to ignore yore recent posts but afterall> it is March Madness ;)> And fur shur, i for one am very glad to read yore posts.> Just ask Julia if Cru appreciates knowledgable stockcar-lovin wimmin!
you most certainly do ~ and they appreciate you as well .... ;)
Blush--Stats are my thing & i really like sharing more obs-cru-e ones> that the Talking Heads & Inet Writers don't share &/or know about.> Hopefully my stats are not too obscure, but relevant.
You're stats are more than just relevant ~ they are a great springboard for discussion ~ keep 'em coming.
CRU
Julia ~ begging your forgiveness for the snipping (I know it's a pet peeve of your's)... but my few comments were getting lost in the other stuff... I'll try not to let it happen again.. ;)
-- .."your head can't rule your heart ~ a feeling is so much stronger than a thought"... $1 to Bono (U2) from "Vertigo"
On 2005-03-18 07:16:42 -0500, "Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> said:
<malonekath@aol.com> wrote in message> news:1111165269.213400.287760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...>> Crusader wrote:>>> <malonekath@aol.com> wrote in message>>> news:1111149537.975506.113360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>>>> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:>>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:23:13 CST, malonekath@aol.com wrote:>>>>>
thanks raceguy and Cru--I am hoping neither of you are pulling>> my leg>>>>>> on this as I am really trying to be a good newbie to the group.>>>>>
I sometimes act as a self-appointed interpreter for cru. I'm>> quite>>>>> certain he meant what he said. You won't have any difficulty>>>>> figuring out when cru is seriously disagreeing with you. :o)>>>>
thanks for the interpretation!>>>
Yup, MXM is pretty good at interpretation of the Obscure(Obs-cru-e)>> One Cru.>>> Katherine, didn't mean to ignore yore recent posts but afterall>>> it is March Madness ;)>>> And fur shur, i for one am very glad to read yore posts.>>> Just ask Julia if Cru appreciates knowledgable stockcar-lovin wimmin!>>
thanks, Cru! and please know that I certainly don't expect anyone to>> automatically respond to any or all of my posts (or to even read them,>> ahahahaha). (btw, speaking of March Madness, atm I am in first place>> in my work NCAA pool...a lofty perch which should last until, oh, about>> 5:38 pm today.)>
Briefly--Didja beat Cru's 14-2 for the 1st day?>
CRUsnip to On the Nuke Option:>>>> I hope it doesn't happen because it is not good for the sport, but>> I> > > can see how the planets might neatly align.>>>> Katharine>>>>
I gotta feeling it's gonna happen in '05 or '06 at the latest.>>> But i just wonder if only the #29 was caught at LV, would there>>> be much outcry at all?>>
I would say if any other car but the #29 had been caught for that, and>> just that one thing was caught, maybe not. but I think that Harvick>> did himself a great and long-lasting disservice at the Shootout when he>> took out those cars. it was amazing to watch SpeedChannel and ESPN>> that night and the next morning to see so many mild-mannered NASCAR>> drivers speaking so frankly about their anger toward KH. in fact, the>> affected drivers were so angry and speaking so frankly to the teevee>> people that NASCAR took them to the woolshed, I mean the trailer, too>> after they were done with KH because NASCAR didn't want those drivers>> to ruin its shinyhappypeople image (but that's another discussion and I>> digress). then NASCAR made a point before the D500 to tell everyone>> that they had to behave.>>
and then KH's team pulls that crap at LV. so I think the #29 would>> have gotten singled out and punished no matter what and I think it>> might have been the same even without the other problems at LV. but if>> had been some other car, I think there would have been a sanction but>> it would not have been as harsh as the one handed to the #29.>>
Katharine, who thinks the #29 team should have been docked its average>> IQ in championship points for cheating to that extent to qualify for a>> race where KH had an automatic start>>
Sorta answering WW here--Plainly speaking #29 deserved the max penalty> that NA$CAR feels at this time is the max penalty, however they overreacted> to the #48 & #5 'cheating'. (But there is another ongoing thread in RASNMod> that seems to indicate that HMS also cheats pretty good & regularly.)>
Y'all can look it up, but Richard Childress always sez my driver & team> are innocent. Great loyalty RC, but when was yore last race win> or Championship & why?>
I have in the recent past documented that Kevin Harvick is the most> 'probationary' driver in history, but imho, RC seems to think this is> a GOOD thing. But then he never attempted to reign in the dirtiest driver> in N history, so why should he start now?> CRU
I gotta say I was a little surprised at Childress's lack of remorse over the obvious cheating the 29 team did in Vegas ~ it takes a lot of chutzpah to appeal that penalty (which I agree with the majority here, was *way* to light.... I know he has put up with a lot bad behavior from that driver in the past, but I thought he had enough class to show some respect to NASCAR when his team was obviously guilty of the intentional violation.
-- .."your head can't rule your heart ~ a feeling is so much stronger than a thought"... $1 to Bono (U2) from "Vertigo"
"Crusader" <cru32@comcast.net> wrote in message news:39rsrlF60tjbcU1@individual.net...> <malonekath@aol.com> wrote in message> news:1111012537.227665.68720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> >
Sixty8kr wrote:> > > Never heard how they were caught. I do know that they were in the> > > inspection process for q'ing in the top 5.> >
from foxsports.com (by DW):> > =================> > NASCAR has a new rule that requires teams to qualify with a full load> > of fuel so the officials topped off the cars after qualifying to see> > how much fuel each car took before going across the scales with the> > proper amount of weight in them. When they tried to put fuel in the 29> > car, it wouldn't take any fuel. The gas man at the pumps told NASCAR> > that all of the other cars took a gallon to two gallons of fuel, but> > the 29 car wouldn't take any fuel after making a qualifying run. NASCAR> > knew something must be up. They started looking at the fuel cell and> > the filler neck and realized that the 29 crew had tried to trick them> > into thinking that the car was full of fuel when, in fact, it wasn't.> > ================> > full story at http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/3465572> >
I totally agree with his penalty idea:> > ================> > And, oh by the way, to answer your question... I said that NASCAR could> > have told Harvick, "You want to qualify with only four gallons of fuel> > in your car, well guess what dude, you can start the race with those> > four gallons." That would have been a self-inflicted penalty because> > the 29 team would have had to come in to pit very early in the race. I> > thought that could have been part of the penalty as well.> > ===============> >
race what you brung.> >
Katharine> >
Indeed run watcha brung Katharine (not the 1st time i have agreed with
your> pretty good perception of what stockarracin is about.)> What gets me, is how NA$CAR never seems to listen to experts like DW> or the overwhelming majority of fans (on certain issues).> They just seem to think things will always get bigger & better> just because they say so.> Truth is, they used to be benevolent dictators but now have become> omniscient dictators with zero input from drivers, crew chiefs, owners> or fans. This bad attitude will come back to haunt them sooner than later.> CRU> Amen! -- -v- solamente ocho !
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 .
