RCR cheating to win?

[smyler]

I don't want to jump on bandwagons and tar and feather anyone before they have a trial, but if Bob Dillner is reporting correctly, Harvick won by bending a gray area in the rules and NASCAR didn't mind.  Let's see if there is any follow up to this. 
Here is how it reported on Speed/Fox news: http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/5976758
And here is how it reported elsewhere, including Speed's response. http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=ap-nascar-childress-cheatingreport&prov=ap&type=lgns
One thing is for sure, if Harvick and JB don't finish in top 10 next week, I do believe we'll have a good idea of why.

[Dustcloud]

Even if what they allege is true, the article clearly said it's a questionable *but not illegal* practice, and I don't think you can be technically a cheater if you bend a rule that doesn't exist. Bending the gray area is what got Gordon so many wins a few years back. It's irritating and there might soon *be* a rule about it, but at the moment, it's hard to be blaming.

[smyler]

Frankly, not only do I agree, but I applaud any legal thing a team can do to get an advantage.  I'm really not looking forward to the Car of Tommorrow because it will reduce what a team can do to make their car better.  This used to be STOCK car racing, but then they started making modifications and then they went with similar templates.  Pretty soon we are going to have cars similar to IROC.  I like the fact that teams can set their car up to suit the driver.  I just wish their was even more lattitude.

Back to the point at hand, I was just hoping the topic would cause some discussion over what is and isn't cheating.

[paulfan]

Bob Dillner had to be set us by somebody.  I wonder if he will reveal his source.  I have a lot of respect for him.  When he first started I thought he was a goofball, but after listening to him for a while I realized he was articulate and well respected by the insiders.  Claire B Lang w/XM attended the teardown and said that she heard nothing about this until after it aired on  Speed.  If it had happened, there would have been a lot of buzzing at the time.

Another HUGE mistake was made by a new pit reporter from Speed TV prior to the truck race.  In his introduction they said that he was new and than he proceeded to report that Casey Atwood had been suspended for refusing to take a drug test.  I didn't beleive what I was hearing and had to back up and replay it.  After he had finished with his lengthy report Phil Parsons said" I think he meant Kevin Grubbs."  and went on like nothing happened.  This correction should have been more emphatic and dealt with at the moment. 

All in all, a bad weekend for the Speed reporters that we rely on to give us accurate information.

[Chris]

Even if what they allege is true, the article clearly said it's a questionable *but not illegal* practice, and I don't think you can be technically a cheater if you bend a rule that doesn't exist

Here's whats Nascar has to say about this incident,.. or IF they had done this and caught it...
Though not specifically in the rule book, such an infraction would be considered an unfair performance enhancement, NASCAR officials confirmed Tuesday
SO what Nascar is saying this would be a rules violation, and IMO would get a points penalty and probably a fine.

NOW as far as Dillner,.. I had some experience with him when he was at the Summer Shootout at Lowes with the Legends.  He had a relative that raced or something (in a division other than what we did).. but his car and another got together and one spun and he run out in front of the other car in the pits,.. tried to fight the other driver, was just a total ass.  It seemed to carry over and Dillner looks to be the type when he gets "an agenda" he could say or do anything to get 'even'
SO if he had a 'beef' with Childress, Harvick, Burton, because he felt 'snubbed' in some way,.. from the way I have saw him act in person,.. he could have made the whole thing up.

NOW,... to be fair on the other hand,.. when we raced the CTS, we had some wheels that ACCIDENTLY leaked air because the rim was bent slightly.  If the RCR team figured out how to work this to their advantage as the air pressures built up.,... it's possible he could be on track,.. and the rim would never show it unless you really REALLY got down and looked for it.
I'm agreeing with Smyler,.. if the RCR teams DON'T run in the top 10 this week,.. we'll have to guess Dillner was on to something.

[Tyyrus]

INTERESTING READING , YA GOT MY ATTENTION ...EH !   THAT JUST RACING BOY'S AND GIRL'S  !!

TAKING AN ADVANTAGE OF THE GRAY AREA , TO THE POINT OF EXPLOITING YOUR COMPETITION'S
LACK OF ADVENTURE WITHIN THE DARK SIDE...MAN !!  YOUR NOT CHEATING , JUST PUSHING THE
ENVELOPE  RIGHT !   
                                     STAY TUNED FOLKS TO BE CONTINUED...BABY !!!

[Checkeredflag]

OK, now, you all know I'm not mechanically inclined, so I can't comment on what the infraction may or may not be, whether it would help or not, or anything like that.

But, since I can never keep my little mouth (or keyboard) shut, I do have to say this...

Every time there has been an infraction or alleged infraction, including the shocks on the HMS cars last year, which weren't illegal, so weren't penalized, any report was accompanied by not only the reporter standing there telling us, but also by a NASCAR spokesperson stating what was wrong, and then was picked up in the print media by AP and others, with extensive quotes from everyone - including NASCAR, the teams and competitors.

For this, there is nothing but the one report on SPEED, no AP, no nothing.

That just sits wrong with me. 

Couple that with NASCAR denying it happened (wow - Jim Hunter actually came out and said something in a straight-forward manner), when you know they don't love Harvick, and I really have questions.

Then today, Jeff Burton went on as close to a tirade that I've seen from him (NOL article), and in that article, SPEED basically said that they stand behind their reporter, and if NASCAR and RCR don't like it, they need to find out the source of the story, which is one of the oddest "stand up for your employee" statements I've even seen. 

This whole thing is weird, and probably a bunch of nothing.  It's just a shame that there has to be questions thrown at the performance of the 29 and 31 cars, and it takes away from how great they're doing.

Now a question...I'm pretty sure, even if they did use a trick like that, it wouldn't make a car go from say 20th place to a winning car.  How much of an advantage could it realistically be expected to give a car?

[Chris]

Now a question...I'm pretty sure, even if they did use a trick like that, it wouldn't make a car go from say 20th place to a winning car.  How much of an advantage could it realistically be expected to give a car?

You're right... something like this wouldn't make a car go from 20th to winning,...
But bleeder valves are something that has been outlawed (far as I know)
In effect if they HAVE been able to do the same thing in effect is this:
The teams all start the tires on low tire pressure,.. then have to wait in the tires to grow in pressure to the 'correct' race pressure...
It's possible the pressure could grow too much.. hence the bleeder valves help so the pressure don't grow too much.

Couple things.  If the have found a way to make this all work,.. they can start out at higher pressures and the car can be "right" when the car comes out RIGHT AFTER a pit stop,.. and not waste 5 or 6 laps waiting on the tires to come in,... and second, the tires could possibly never get too much pressure, making them more stable threw a long green run.
Both are major advantages.

[Blu]

I persoanlly think its a bunch of hoo haw but Ill give the guy the benefit of a doubt...for now. If RCR found a way to make something like that work without the tire  going flat...thats pretty dang neat..and hard to prove too!

How would someone even think to look for somehting as minute as that?? He had to have heard..somehting..from.. someone (or made it all up) IMHO. it wouldnt be visible to the naked eye to say" HEY LOOKIT THAT!"

Am I nuts here or did I once hear a phrase form NASCAR like this? "If its (a modification) not covered in the (NASCAR) rule book..ya cant do it! It's illegal..Period!"

Seems I heard that or somehting VERY similar a few years ago from a NASCAR God. It would really make sense if it was the case , and IF someone was doing somehting... there would be NO grey areas.

Not covered..Ya CAN'T do it!ILLEGAL Period! There is NO" grey area" with that!

It seems to me THAT kinda went out the window when HMS got..err..very "innovative" in grey areas ("pushing the envelope" is how the put it as i recall) a few years ago..might have been around the JG tire soaking thing timewise.

Id say bring that rule back (or just enforce the dang thing!) no matter WHO is doing it...it's simple...and fair IMO!!

If not...this kinda stuff will just get worse and worse( IMO it has already). WHY even have rules regarding mods then?

HMS, Evernham, Knauss all lead the pack on this "grey area" BS IMHO.One of the reasons I dislike them so much as NASCAR invented this "grey area" thing about then.

 Say it aint so!! NASCAR playing favs???

All comes down to what we have touted and griped and complained about for years...BE CONSISTANT!!
 Just say "There are NO GREY AREAS!!"

[Blu]

Does anyone have, or know where I could foind a copy of the NASCAR rule book??

I have a LOT of time to read, and Id love to give it a once over.

[Chris]

I got a copy... Have to be a driver, owner, or crew member to get one....
but don't get all excited...
It's very VERY generic... it's written JUST like they enforce the rules,...
They didn't pin themselves down in the rule book either.

The rule book is about 75 pages long, and the first 33 pages covers general BS.  What the flags mean, membership, licenses, race procedures, protest, etc.
The last 1/2 of the book just covers HOW to build the truck (I got a CTS rule book), couple years old.
Engine eligibility, cylinder heads, etc (10 pages cover just the motor)
The rest tells how the chassis should be built, templates, what parts are allowed and how they should be constructed (ie springs - heavy duty magnetic steel, constructed with one closed ground closed coil end, and one open coil end); sway bars, shocks, brakes,

NO WHERE is any penalties listed, "what if's" or anything like that...
THAT is how they get away with being so inconsistent.

[Blu]

Kinda what i suspected Chris.

Would you mind if  I had a look at it?I realize its not forthe cup cars but Ill bet there are a lot of similarities.

[Tyyrus]

                                    HEY ANYONE HEAR AN ECHO OUT THERE..MAN !
       
                                   
                                                          HEY BLU .....   
                                     WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE , BUT I THINK WERE JUST
                                      SPINNIN OUR WHEELS..MAN ! NASCAR ENFORCES
                                             ONLY WHAT THEY CHOOSE TOO !!!

[paulfan]

Chris, I think it is a stretch to think Dilner would report the matter if he didn't hear it from somebody.  Cant see him doing it and jeprodize his career and credibility because of a grudge against a team.

What I could see, especially if someone considers him an ass and had an ax to grind with him, is feeding him disinformation knowing that he would report it without any confirmation just to get the scoop.

[Chris]

What I could see, especially if someone considers him an ass and had an ax to grind with him, is feeding him disinformation knowing that he would report it without any confirmation just to get the scoop.

Thats possible...
IMO when a reports what is "supposed" to be facts,.. he has a 'responsobility' to be truthful and factual...
Not sure what level it has to reach to before he could held accountable for slander...  BUt reporting something as fact,.. AND failing to back it up with some proof, and then furthermore, standing behind that and continuing to report that thing as FACTS, still without proof HAS to be getting pretty close.

Thats why you so often see something reports and then retracted...
Surprisingly not in THIS case... hhuummm