41 car too Low at Talladega

NASCAR has issued penalties and fines to the No. 41 team that competes in the NASCAR NEXTEL Cup Series after the the UAW-Ford 500 at Talladega.

The No. 41 Dodge was found to be too low in the front of the car.

Reed Sorenson has been penalized 25 championship driver points.
Car owner Chip Ganassi has been penalized 25 championship car owner points.
Crew chief Jimmy Elledge has been fined $25,000 and placed on probation until Dec. 31.

The car went through NASCAR's height sticks twice and had the car of tomorrow template placed on it in postrace inspection. Sorenson was a random selection for inspection.

scenedaily.com

Penalties for Busch and Sauter

NASCAR issued penalties and fines to the No. 5 and No. 70

Both cars -- the No. 5 Chevrolet driven by Kyle Busch and the No. 70 Chevrolet driven by Johnny Sauter -- were found to be in violation of a much quoted, little seen rule book, Sections
12-4-A (actions detrimental to stock car racing);
12-4-Q (car, car parts, components and/or equipment used do not conform to NASCAR rules); and
(So what happens when they hit 12-4-Z? Do we go to 12-5 or 12-4.1x?)
20-12.8.1B, COT Technical Bulletin #3, dated 4/10/07 (failed to meet the minimum front car heights) of the 2007 NASCAR rule book.

The violations were found during post-race inspections after the New Hampshire race.

Both drivers have been penalized 25 driver points.
Their crew chiefs -- Alan Gustafson and Robert "Bootie" Barker -- have each been fined $25,000 and placed on probation until Sept. 19.

Busch drops from ninth in 10th in the point standings as a result.

In addition, Rick Hendrick, owner of the No. 5, has been penalized 25 (more) car owner championship points as has Joe Custer, the owner of the No. 70.

Each driver's finish in Sunday's race -- 11th for Busch and 14th for Sauter -- will stand.

Bruce's Note:
And now it begins. Is this consistent with NASCAR's stance about COT penalties or is this realistic with the type of infraction? And why do finishing positions stand? In recent years, have we ever seen a position taken from a driver? Of course, has it ever been warranted? I can only hope that the day comes that they do find something serious after a race, that the position is taken away from the driver. That would then validate their web postings of "Unnofficial" results and point standings that they so diligently state after each event.

NASCAR considering Stiffer COT Penalties

It looks like they've been reading my blog finally!!

OK, all joking aside, NASCAR has not ruled out suspending drivers as a deterrent for cheating on the Car of Tomorrow.

Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. were all docked 100 points from failed COT inspections. Their crew chiefs were fined $100,000 and suspended six races a piece, but the drivers have been allowed to compete and all three are in contention for the Chase for the championship. (In which is where I say, how's this impacting the teams for "cheating"?) And it was reported that the Hendricks chiefs were AT New Hampshire in motor coaches.. how the heck does that deter teams??

France said they don't want to get to the stage of suspending drivers, but they are still looking at how to make the penalties more of a deterrent, and it seems they may be willing to suspend drivers as an option.'

(You could always take my idea and run with it Brian: Not allowing the first string pit crew members from competing.)

For more of this article, go to: nascar.com

Busch & Sauter cars Impounded

Kyle Busch and Johnny Sauters cars were impounded after the race in New Hampshire after the post race inspections found the vehicles to be too low in the front ends.

NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said the cars were impounded and will be transported to the sanctioning organization's research and development center in Concord, N.C., where the measurements will be checked on special equipment to confirm the problem before determining what, if any, penalties will be meted out.

The rest of the article talks about the more recent COT penalties.
foxsports.com

The Panalties on the Hendricks Teams

Up until now, I was on the fence about these gray areas of the rules that Hendrick and others keep noting, versus, what does the rule book say to make it seem so gray to everyone. Ahh, the gray may be in the rose tinted glasses used to read the rules!!

David Poole of the Charlotte Observer and Thatsracin.com, over on his blog, The Turn Lane, expressed the infractions like this:

You’ve got people looking at the rule book and deciding that if something isn’t prohibited, by actual word printed in that book, it’s legal. This "gray area" is where they try to make a living, but what it shows me is a lack of "gray matter" in their brains.

Here are the salient portions of the rule governing penalties against Hendrick Motorsports at Infineon Raceway:

Rule 20-2.1
The car body must be acceptable to NASCAR officials and meet the following minimum requirements:
-Streamlining of the contours of the car, beyond that approved by the Series Director, will not be permitted.
-If, in the judgment of NASCAR Officials, any part or component of the car not previously approved by NASCAR that has been installed or modified to enhance aerodynamic performance, will not be permitted. All cars must remain standard in appearance.
-Fenders may not be cut or altered except for wheel or tire clearance, which must be approved by the Series Director.

--- end of quote from David's post---

Here is my response to part of his post:

First: It's awesome to see the penalty compared directly to the much referenced, but little seen rulebook of NASCAR. Thank you David.

In the context of the matter, with the fenders flared outside the tolerances you mentioned this morning, then obviously, they were hoping they'd get by with this gray area tinkering, but the text does say no aero adjustments.

(Someone presented the idea that the 2 Hendrick teams accidentally installed test fenders)
I don't buy the premise of a test fender being put on accidentally. These guys, being the seasoned professionals, knew what they were doing.

As far as the penalty goes, it is consistent. It's these teams first COT penalty, and hence, treated the same as Jr.'s fiasco.

Excessive? That's why I don't think it was escalated.. this time. It seems excessive, but the message is being delivered unto the minions of the sport. Is it not?

Race on boys!