Rusty loses 25 points!!

H

hooty3

Guest
just read on nascar.com that rusty lost 25 points for unapproved rear spoiler...

Wallace penalized 25 points by NASCAR
October 8, 2002
4:33 PM EDT (2033 GMT)




DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- NASCAR officials announced today that three members of the No. 2 Ford team in the NASCAR Winston Cup Series have been either penalized or fined because of rule violations last weekend at Talladega Superspeedway.


The No. 2 crew services Rusty Wallace during Sunday's EA SPORTS 500. Credit Autostock
Rusty Wallace, driver of the No. 2 Ford, has been penalized 25 series championship points. In addition, Wallace's car owner Roger Penske has been penalized 25 car owner points and the team's crew chief Bill Wilburn has been fined $25,000.

All three were in violation of Section 12-4-A in the NASCAR Winston Cup rule book ("Actions detrimental to stock car racing.") and Section 12-4-Q ("Any determination by NASCAR officials that parts and/or equipment used in the Event do not conform to NASCAR rules.") because their car was found to have an unapproved spoiler.

The spoiler was found to have an inconsistent thickness.

NASCAR also issued three other fines because of rule violations at Talladega. All violations were found during the weekend's initial inspection process on Oct. 4:


A $1,000 fine, under sections 12-4-A and 12-4-Q to Ben Leslie, crew chief of the No. 6 Ford. The car was found to have unapproved rear window straps.


A $1,000 fine, under sections 12-4-A and 12-4-Q to Mike Hillman, crew chief of the No. 14 Pontiac. The car was found to have an unapproved lower rear coil spring mount.


A $1,000 fine, under sections 12-4-A and 12-4-Q to Thomas Klein, crew chief of the No. 11 Ford. The car also was found to have an unapproved lower rear coil spring mount.
 
Well, that's a first I guess, losing points for something that happens in prerace.....I wonder if he'll pay in pennies.
 
Johnson got 25 points taken away for something this year I forget what. Nice to see they are enforcing post-race penalties on drivers besides the ones that win.
 
Ummm,this was a PRE race penalty. That's what is confusing. I hadn't heard of this happening to anyone else this year.
 
Supposedly the spoiler never made it through inspection. It was confiscated on Friday.

NASCAR also issued three other fines because of rule violations at Talladega. All violations were found during the weekend's initial inspection process on Oct. 4:  

A $1,000 fine, under sections 12-4-A and 12-4-Q to Ben Leslie, crew chief of the No. 6 Ford. The car was found to have unapproved rear window straps.  

A $1,000 fine, under sections 12-4-A and 12-4-Q to Mike Hillman, crew chief of the No. 14 Pontiac. The car was found to have an unapproved lower rear coil spring mount.  

A $1,000 fine, under sections 12-4-A and 12-4-Q to Thomas Klein, crew chief of the No. 11 Ford. The car also was found to have an unapproved lower rear coil spring mount.
Click to expand...

In fact, all of these were found on Friday.
 
I understand the fines, there is no question about that, but taking 25 points for something that never made it on to the race track? Seems a bit steep to me, but that's just my Opinion
 
That was the same way that Jimmie Johnson lost his 25 points earlier this year. The rear trailing arm was off 5/16" and was a PRE-RACE infraction. Glad to see that Rusty and others have suffered the same. Glad to see that, at least for now, NA$CAR is at least trying to be consistent on something.

BTW, I do NOT agree with penalizing points for pre-race infractions, for anyone.:mad:
 
Well, I don't know if Nascar can be considered consistent on anything, unless it's being inconsistent. I don't remember JJ losing points a prerace infraction, but I guess if that's the case then Rusty's penalty is warranted. I really am getting tired of all the crap Nascar is pulling anymore. (Sorry, I still have a bad taste in my mouth after the whole Fuel cell fiasco) Not looking forward to next year so much anymore after reading Helton's interview. Just one more step towards common templates (standard body locations, see article at TR) Another change that is supposed to lower costs. Another load IMO. Still venting, feel free to ignore me.
 
That sucks, but Rusty's team should have known better than to try messing with the spoiler. I don't know of too many cases where teams got fined more than money for something found in pre-race inspection. With the points as close as they are, that really hurts.
 
Rusty is still the man regardless of the Nascar rules mess!
 
Not sure I agree with penalizing for pre-race infractions. But, I can see a possible reason behind NASCAR's cracking down. They just might be trying to put the message out......."Don't even try it". If that is what they are doing, then I just might switch sides and agree. Get the race teams honest.........start to finish.:)
 
well he shouldnt try to get away with it to put in the race, this put a smile to my face it makes my jeffy has a better shot to pass him!!
 
Mlite-I guess I was right about the spoiler violation penalties that would/should result from it.
 
Broyles, yes it does look like you were correct. I didn't see any way that Nascar could justify it, but they did. Oh well. And Zoe, Jeffy needs Nascar to take points away from Rusty for him to pass him in the points?
 
No Mlite-It looks like Jeff has got his points reductions all under control.
 
I can only assume that you are speaking about the bizzare engine failures this past weekend. I don't expect to see that happen again any time soon. The only one I really hate to see it happen too is Terry, the other guys...neh, couldn't care.
 
I have reserved comment on this, hoping for more clarity from our beloved sanctioning body. Dumb move on my part.

Taking points for a pre-race infraction is a bit severe in my book. Particularly since they didn't even qualify, lined 'em up by points. Then again, that team should know better. Maybe they were trying to slip something by, maybe not. I have no idea. I kinda like ol' Rusty, have ever since he punted Jaws' Tide Ride in the Winston a few years back. It just seems like there could have been a better way to handle the infraction.
 
TN, you brought up a valid question. Whether or not they tried to do it on purpose. The only people who could even know the answer to this are the builders of the car and crew members. From what I have read, the spoiler didn't meet specified "thickness" this seems like an odd way to gain an advantage. The only advantage I see this having is maybe allowing the spoiler to "lay down" at speeds. This would decrease drag I guess. I can't imagine that this was the teams goal, however. These cars are running at the edge of control at speed and doing this would only increase the chances of losing control. Regardless, what's done is done. I wish I could say that now I have seen it all, but I'm sure nascar will think of something else before the season's over.
 
I'm certain that by week's end several differing theories will be proffered on the penalty. Perhaps, as was the case with a similar infraction and penalty against the Lowes team earlier this season, John Darby will present more of NASCAR's thinking on the subject.

As mlite points out the only logical reason to thin the spoiler material is to create a situation where it might flex enough to create less resistance, and thus less downforce but more speed. These cars are not really on the edge from a downforce standpoint at the plate tracks. NASCAR has instituted certain rules including mandated rear springs and shocks, spoiler angles and indeed the spoiler templates to prevent the teams from creating less downforce in an attempt to gain higher speeds.

The thinning of the spoiler would appear to be in the same spirit as the track arm mount length the Lowes team was busted with earlier.

NASCAR obviously feels that the violation was neither accidental nor the result of an interpretive misunderstanding. The same conclusion was reached in the Lowes instance and the penalties are identical.

Clearly NASCAR will not tolerate violations of the aero rules at the plate tracks. I find no inconsistency in this ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom