"Issue" Is NASCAR's New Word For Cheater

by 4ever3 on Mar 3, 2008 10:12 PM EST Comment 13 comments

By NASCAR's use of the word "issue" it clears the way for Carl Edwards to keep his victory.

NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said Edwards' car did not fail post-race inspection. Instead he said that inspectors found something amiss.

"We had an issue in post-race inspection with the 99. The lid on the oil reservoir encasement, or the oil tank box, was off," Poston said. "So we're going to take the 99 back to the [NASCAR] Research and Development Center in Concord, N.C., and if there are any actions that need to be taken, those will be taken and announced next week."

What? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.

If a car fails post-race inspection, and the cause is not clearly a mechanical malfunction then it must be cheating - human error or not. Human error happens before the race and is caught in the many pre-race inspections, there is no human error in the post-race inspection just cheating.

The lid of the oil cooler was completely off. I've never hear of one just coming off like that, but then again, I don't work on these cars everyday so I could be out in left field here, although I don't think I am (at this point in time at least). The lid had to have been aided by human hands in order for it to come off. Edwards didn't hit anything so it can't even be blamed on that.

The scenario that I envisioned was one that goes like this;

Carl: "The car is just too tight in the corners, what are we going to do?"

Bob Osborne (Crew Chief): "Don't worry we've got it covered, um I mean uncovered."

Bob, to crew member: "Make sure you back that bolt off a bit so the lid is loose and we get that air suction."

Then we all know what happened next.

Carl: "It was just one of those mistakes, human error."

Yep, he loosened it off too much so that it fell off.

My predictions as to how all of this will pan out:

- Carl will loose 100 points, as will Rousch/Fenway but they will be allowed to keep the win.

- Bob Osborne will get a 6 race probation and get fined no less than $10 000 and no more than $50 000.

- Rousch/Fenway will also get the same fine as Osborne.

Personally, I think the fines and penalties should be more harsh for those infractions caught in post-race inspections than for pre-race inspections because if you get caught cheating before you actually did it then there is no way you can effect the outcome of the race, unlike getting caught after you cheated where you were able to effect the outcome.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: cheating, sprint cup, carl edwards, nascar

Comments

What exactly is the benefit to having the oil cooler lid off?

by James J. on Mar 4, 2008 12:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The oil box is open to the outside underneath of the car and by leaving the lid off, or loose, allows air flow into the car from the underneath. This in turns allows the car to 'suck' down closer to the track thus giving the car less drag through the air and allows the car to go faster.

by 4ever3 on Mar 4, 2008 12:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

"If a car fails post-race inspection, and the cause is not clearly a mechanical malfunction then it must be cheating - human error or not. Human error happens before the race and is caught in the many pre-race inspections, there is no human error in the post-race inspection just cheating."

You're jumpin' the starters flag Bob.

Whether any "cheating" occurred in all likelihood can't be determined until after inspection at the R&D Center.

Keep in mind the five NNS cars that had loose oil caps, that raises the chance of a design flaw and I suspect that is what NASCAR is looking at. Granted it also might point to a "massage" some teams have learned and have started to use to gain an advantage.

An a pre-sage of Edward fate and the other 4 NNS cars may be i the recinding of penalties assessed to the Rusty Wallace team for their oil cap infraction... that wasn't.

by MArc on Mar 4, 2008 5:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Marc,
Design flaw I can handle, but I also agree with the fact that some teams have learned about it and are, as you put it,'massaging it'. Teams like Rousch/Fenway didn't get to where they are today with 'massaging' the gray areas to get a performance edge, after all it is only cheating if you get caught, which might just be the case.

by 4ever3 on Mar 4, 2008 7:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The oil tank cover being loose is one thing, but to have it come completely off.....not an oversight, not human error, more like premeditated effort! The question is; did this effect the outcome of the race? I believe it did! The advantage Edwards had over the rest of the field is huge! It's my opinion that NASCAR not only take points away but the win as well. Matt R

by Anonymous on Mar 4, 2008 8:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Anon - "The oil tank cover being loose is one thing, but to have it come completely off.....not an oversight, not human error, more like premeditated effort!"

And you know this how? Fact is you don't, if something can work it was loose under the stress of 190mph racing for 3 hours it can certainly completely back off and fall off.

It's not so common sense.

If you're offering his "huge" advantage over the field as proof the evidence is tossed out. It not as it others haven't won by having a huge advantage and NOT cheated to gain it.

Logic and common sense is not your strong suit "Anon," some type of ingrained bias is.

by Marc on Mar 4, 2008 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Was the oil lid part missing or was it located somewhere else in the car? If it was not somewhere close to the tank then was it located on the track?

If neither, looks like Carl might be in for a major infraction.

How is the oil tank positioned on the car? Is the oil tank lid on top of it or located on the bottom of the tank?

by Jon on Mar 4, 2008 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

guys guys guys....You are getting it all wrong here. This was simply a 'clerical' error buy the manufacturer. Surely you can't blame the team of the driver for such a clerical error can you? ;)

In all seriousness aside, this reaks of the famed 'busted jack bolt' days from almost a decade ago. Hard to prove if there was intent of not, but the fact remains that the car didn't meet specs.

by okla21fan on Mar 4, 2008 3:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If the Nationwide cars are similiar to the older body in design, and the Cup cars are a complete redesign, how did a very similar design flaw occur in both types of cars? Considering the Nationwide body design has been around a few years and it never has caused a problem (as far as we know) before.

by rickr on Mar 4, 2008 4:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

rickr - "If the Nationwide cars are similiar to the older body in design, and the Cup cars are a complete redesign,"

There is no evidence to suggest the same oil tank isn't present in both type of cars. Just because the CORN is a "complete redesign" is far from meaning each and every part on it haven't been used on a NNS car also.

It's possible the tank in question has been new to both series' and built, like a lot of parts are, by an outside manufacturer.

And example of that is the current "Robby bruhaha."

Everyone and their brother in RGMs "chain of command" has taken responsibility. Except... Five Star Bodies the company that makes the front nosepiece for every team regardless of make of car they race.

by MArc on Mar 4, 2008 11:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting that such a huge NASCAR fan doesn't know how to spell Roush (after all, the guy only runs 12 teams every week). There is no 'C' in it. It is not Rousch, just like you don't mispell Handrick or Childless.

by Anonymous on Mar 5, 2008 11:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Marc,

What I was trying to point out (rather badly I guess) is that if it is the same cooler, why havent we heard about this before? If its the same one they have always used & carried it over to the new car, then the same problem should have happened before.

by rickr on Mar 5, 2008 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Anon,
I take it that you are a "Rousch" fan and if that is the only problem you can find with this post then I can see that you agree with the cheating accusation. If you look at my previous posts, which I'm sure you have, you will notice that I have indeed spelt Rousch properly.

I'm sure Jack Rousch is honoured to have you come to his defense over this, after all mispelling a name is a great offence in the NASCAR world, and me being such a huge NASCAR fan and all certainly wouldn't want to spell Hendrick, Childress, Evernham, Petty, or even Rousch wrong.

Thank you for your help in this matter, I'm sure it will happen again.

by 4ever3 on Mar 5, 2008 4:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs