cheating is not exceptional

[shaakir11]

Do anybody thing that Jimmy johnson should be disqualified from races because of cheating , it is a unfair advantage?

[Alexamateo]

Exactly how is Jimmie Johnson cheating? They inspect cars every week, and they pass. Yes there have been times in the past, but they served those suspensions and point deductions at the time as have many other teams.

[dunes]

http://l.yimg.com/dh/ap/sports/fn/auto/2013/p/auto_630x44.jpg (http://racing.fantasysports.yahoo.com/auto)




NASCAR punishes Penske drivers for Texas misstepsBy STEPHEN HAWKINS (AP Sports Writer) | The Associated Press – 19 hours ago
things are getting scry to be in this sport.

[muggle not]

Brad looks foolish after all his talking and now with the penalties, all deserving IMHO.

[call_me_andrew]

They're all cheating in some small way. Usually no one gets caught.

[muggle not]

LOL, but it appears that Kenseth got caught. Lets see what type penalty he gets for the Kansas infraction. I was wondering how he won several races, now we may know.

[call_me_andrew]

Kenseth only had one connecting rod that was underweight. TRD is taking the blame.

[muggle not]

50 Points is not a small penalty, nor are the other penalties including the one to his crew chief.
Kenseth draws big penalty (http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/articles/2013/04/24/kenseth-draws-big-penalty-out-of-kansas.html)

[Alexamateo]

Something I am trying to understand. They said one of Kenseth's connecting rods was under weight. Wouldn't that make an engine turning close to 10,000 rpm's unbalanced? If they all were, I could see the advantage, but just one seems to be a manufacturer's error. What am I missing here?

[tstran17_88]

I was wondering how he won several races, now we may know.
Sure seems to be the way the #24 and #48 teams have gotten their wins over the years. A person would think that the #88 team would start using their teammates tactics to get Junior some more wins, but I guess Steve Letarte is probably afraid he wouldn’t get off with a slap on the wrist like Knaus or whichever baby sitter they have running the #24 bunch this year.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Something I am trying to understand. They said one of Kenseth's connecting rods was under weight. Wouldn't that make an engine turning close to 10,000 rpm's unbalanced? If they all were, I could see the advantage, but just one seems to be a manufacturer's error. What am I missing here?

I don't think it makes much of a difference, Considering that the things weight only half a kilo to begin with, the worst you would experience might be a bit of vibration and additional wear and stress on the crankshaft. So if anything, it isn't an advantage, but a risk to damage the engine.

What baffles me, however is, how come nobody asks the blatantly obvious: How in the name of all that's holy did they find out? :eek: Did they really completely disassemble the engine and measure every friggin' part of it? And who the bathplug has minimum weights for engine parts to begin with?
Is it just me or are there other people, who think that the whole shebang of such complex tech rules is just there to make sure that you can always find something to penalize the crap out of people if they, let's say, commit the crime of winning too often or leading the championship by too many points. It's not like NASCAR hasn't got a history of fixing races whenever it takes their fancy. Just ask any driver who had a comfortable lead wiped out by a bogus yellow for 'debris'.

Most racing series in the world doesn't even have a minimum weight for the whole engine, let alone single parts of it and what performance gain would result from an engine that is 'underweight' by the equivalent of two cotton balls on a car that weighs more than Belgium? :eek:

So, he had a part with a minor production fault, which resulted in no measurable gain, but additional risk of technical fault and they come down on him like a pack of dogs on a three legged cat with a draconian punishment. Did he win by too big a margin or did he overtake someone TPTB wanted to win or what was the real crime that was punished here?

[muggle not]

If you want to race in Nascar, you play by their rules. It has always been that way. The penalty to the JGR cars were more severe than those given Penske's teams. So, I gotta believe that Nascar knows what they are doing rather than a fans opinion. We can guess and guess but only Nascar knows what the impact truly was. Also,there are three things you don't screw with.....Engine, tires, and fuel.

[dj_bytedisaster]

If you want to race in Nascar, you play by their rules. It has always been that way. The penalty to the JGR cars were more severe than those given Penske's teams. So, I gotta believe that Nascar knows what they are doing rather than a fans opinion. We can guess and guess but only Nascar knows what the impact truly was. Also,there are three things you don't screw with.....Engine, tires, and fuel.

All jolly well, but if 1 rod out of 8 is underweight by a few grams, everybody with half a brain can see that it wasn't done to gain a competitive advantage, but more likely a manufacturing error and unless the team in question builds their engines themselves, they didn't even have a chance to know about it or are they supposed to disassemble and reassemble every engine they take delivery of. And even if you can find an answer to these questions, punishing them this hard for such a minor deviation is ridiculous and completely arbitrary.

[Alexamateo]

Don't be so sure about that.

REVCO Precision - Balancing and Specialty Machine (http://revcoprecision.com/faq.html)


Q: What is your balancing tolerances, and for what RPM is that good for?
A: We balance ALL components in ALL our engines to within .5 grams (that’s +/- .25 gram), whether it’s a street motor, or race, they get the same treatment. Most shops use a +/- .5 gram tolerance at best, and most don’t have the precision scales and tooling that we have. This tolerance is more than acceptable for engines running 10,000 plus RPM.

3 grams is well out of tolerance for even a run-of-the-mill shop. For this engine to have one rod light and not have a significant vibration indicates the engine was balanced and tuned to run that way. There are some interesting discussions about what is going on at some other forums. One thing is for sure, this was purposefully done.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Don't be so sure about that.

REVCO Precision - Balancing and Specialty Machine (http://revcoprecision.com/faq.html)



3 grams is well out of tolerance for even a run-of-the-mill shop. For this engine to have one rod light and not have a significant vibration indicates the engine was balanced and tuned to run that way. There are some interesting discussions about what is going on at some other forums. One thing is for sure, this was purposefully done.

It was reported that the weight difference was equivalent to 'two cotton balls'. A cotton ball weighs what - 1 gram max? What sort of purpose does it serve to make a car that weighs more than Belgium lighter by 2 or 3 grams?

And one rod out of 8 being lighter by a single digit number of grams with the whole part weighing way more than 100 times the weight difference does not produce a significant vibration. It would be measurable, but probably not even recognizable to the driver and the detrimental effect on the crankshaft would only manifest over a time that NASCAR engines aren't built to last for in the first place.

[Alexamateo]

Yes, but that 3 grams is moving at 10,000 rpm.

I think this quote from a poster at another forum sums it up nicely:


The guys that built this engine are operating at the highest level in the sport. They would most certainly weigh and measure EVERY item that went into one of their motors. (They don't cost $150,000 for the best motors for nothing). If they accidently installed the 'light' part there HAD to be a vibration, however small, inside the engine. They most certainly would have picked this up on the DYNO i would think when they 'listened' to the engine. Again, these guys are the most highly skilled guys in the business. They could pick this up like you and i would hear a car 'skip'.

So, it was either a HUGE error which got overlooked at several points along the build process, or....
There was some attempt, for whatever reason, to run this underweight part. They have their reasons, and ideas, about the advantage which this might have created, either now, or down the road when they attempted something else. Heck, there might have been something else on this car that is now overlooked because so much attention is focused on a single connecting rod.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Talking about guys, who build 1950's technology pushrod engines that get a measly 900 HP from a 5.9 litre engine as the 'most highly skilled in the business' is a bit of a joke, isn't it? What about the guys, who extracted 1.000 bhp from 1.8l turbo F1 engine in the 80s or the guys, who got 900bhp from 3.5 l V10 20 years ago? Or the guys, who built engines that revved 20.000 in the early naughts.
A 200 ton pushrod behemoth that most of the world gave up on, when the ox cart went out of style that loses half its horse power just setting its own moving parts in motion is not a sophisticated device and a weight difference of 3 grams in a single part does not make the least bit of difference. 10.000 revs are maybe not common place but used in several road vehicles, especially Honda and Mazda cars. Those engines go in excess of 100.000 miles and aren't built in clean room laboratories, but on an industrial scale and they don't blow up every week.

This whole penalty thing was based on trumped up charges. NASCAR had an agenda and the rod was just an excuse.

[Alexamateo]

Outside of F1, Nascar has the highest paid drivers in the world. It follows that they would attract the second highest level of engineering talent in the world. In fact, Nascar teams employ several former F1 guys now. Regardless of what you may or may not think of the technology, rules are laid out and Engineers are tasked with bringing the most out of the cars within the rules.

You don't see how it could make a difference, and I don't either, but something is going on, and I am quite certain it is not an innocent mistake. The head of TRD said they don't have enough manpower to weigh every piece. I don't buy that, not when the average shop down the street doing rebuilds weighs theirs.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Outside of F1, Nascar has the highest paid drivers in the world. It follows that they would attract the second highest level of engineering talent in the world. In fact, Nascar teams employ several former F1 guys now. Regardless of what you may or may not think of the technology, rules are laid out and Engineers are tasked with bringing the most out of the cars within the rules.

The second highest level of engineering talent works in Le Mans Prototypes, then come other GT series and maybe then NASCAR. Name just 3 former F1 guys, who work in NASCAR now. NASCAR engines are on a technological level that went out of style, when the Romans left, you don't need Einstein to handle these things.
Even in highly weight optimized cars like F1 cars, which weigh something like 650kg, to make a difference, you'd have to lower the weight by something like a kilogram. On a heavy car like a Sprint Cup car 3, 10, 50 even 100grams are not going to make a measurable difference. Yes, there was a rule infringement on paper (a rule that is ridiculous at best), but not one that the team could have avoided, because they get their engines from external and they can't be expected disassemble the engines once they get them. I'm not a craftsman - in fact I would kill myself trying to drive a nail into a wall, but I did enough planning work and math grinding for my brother's car repair/tuning workshop to know that 3 grams wouldn't make any measurable difference. If they wanted to gain an atvatage, they would have had to reduce the weight of ALL connecting rods and the crankshaft and pistons, too. And that's not even counting the fact that at 900Hp out of 5.9l, NASCAR engines have an abysmal degree of efficiency to begin with. To gain any significant advantage, you'd have to reduce the weight by Kilo's, not grams.

Mind you, NASCAR provides some of the best and most entertaining racing in the world, but the cars are about as sophisticated as Ben Hur's chariot and the gouverning body has no qualms tampering with races for the sake of 'the show'.


You don't see how it could make a difference, and I don't either, but something is going on, and I am quite certain it is not an innocent mistake. The head of TRD said they don't have enough manpower to weigh every piece. I don't buy that, not when the average shop down the street doing rebuilds weighs theirs.

You think it is Engine doping and I think it is just a trumped up charge, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[call_me_andrew]

What baffles me, however is, how come nobody asks the blatantly obvious: How in the name of all that's holy did they find out? :eek: Did they really completely disassemble the engine and measure every friggin' part of it? And who the bathplug has minimum weights for engine parts to begin with?

Every engine from the top-5 cars is disassembled and its parts weighed. NASCAR started enforcing minimum weights for the reciprocating mass about 10 years ago as a means of cost control.

The penalty should be the same whether there was a manufacturing error or malice on the part of the engine builders. If you don't set a tough precedent now and have difficulty proving malice in a future event, you can find yourself in a very uncomfortable position.

Let's have fun with math. An F1 engine with a maximum legal bore (98 mm/3.858 inches) could have a stroke no longer than 39.751 mm (1.565 inches). At 20,000 rpm (well over the current maximum) this engine has a mean-average piston speed of 26.5 meters per second (86.942 feet per second). A Sprint Cup engine with a maximum legal bore (4.185 inches/106.3mm) could have a stroke no longer than 3.25 inches (82.55 millimeters). At 10,000 rpm the engine has mean-average piston speed of 90.223 feet per second (27.5 meters per second). Could it be that horsepower per displacement is an ineffective way of measuring performance?

[dj_bytedisaster]

Could it be that horsepower per displacement is an ineffective way of measuring performance?

Of course it isn't an exact measure, but the fact that Nascar engines need a displacement this huge to generate 900hp says a lot about their degree of efficiency or lack thereof.
I think the penalty is grossly unjust. NASCAR could not prove that it was malice, nor could they prove that it gave the car any advantage, so the team is hugely punished for a manufacturing error they had no means of detecting beforehand. Docking points for something like that torpedoes the cost cutting intentions of the whole rule. Now engine suppliers will be required to double and triple check each and every part to aviation standards, which will crank the price of engines to aviation standards, too. And teams will be required to cross-check, too, which means additional personnel and additional cost, because if they don't they could find themselves being handed crippling fines and huge point deductions for no fault of their own.

[muggle not]

Outside of F1, Nascar has the highest paid drivers in the world. It follows that they would attract the second highest level of engineering talent in the world. In fact, Nascar teams employ several former F1 guys now. Regardless of what you may or may not think of the technology, rules are laid out and Engineers are tasked with bringing the most out of the cars within the rules.

You don't see how it could make a difference, and I don't either, but something is going on, and I am quite certain it is not an innocent mistake. The head of TRD said they don't have enough manpower to weigh every piece. I don't buy that, not when the average shop down the street doing rebuilds weighs theirs.

You pretty much hit it on the head. Of course those guys knew what they were doing. Why, we don't know but you can be sure it was not done to make the car perform worse.

[Alexamateo]

..........The second highest level of engineering talent works in Le Mans Prototypes, then come other GT series and maybe then NASCAR. Name just 3 former F1 guys, who work in NASCAR now. NASCAR engines are on a technological level that went out of style, when the Romans left, you don't need Einstein to handle these things......

.

Well, Engineers don't usually become household names, but I do know Michael Waltrip Racing sued Mike Coughlan and the Williams F1 team a couple of years ago over breach of contract. :p

You may choose not to believe it, but Nascar pays better throughout the ranks than other forms of motorsports, and the cost of living is lower over here. You are correct that the base technology itself is not cutting edge, but what they do to extract speed out of these dinosaurs is cutting edge. The money is good and it attracts talent.

http://www.gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2008/the_way_it_is_no143.html


Like so many things in life, engineers and their toys follow the money. One result of this aphorism is that, as NASCAR boomed over the past ten years, the number of engineers employed in American stock car racing has skyrocketed. All the top NASCAR teams have become engineering-led operations and in the 21st century, NASCAR is more like Formula 1 than you might have guessed.

These days, NASCAR is full of former Indy/Champ Car and F1 engineers, working on everything from engines to aerodynamics. One of the reasons both Joe Gibbs Racing and Toyota have been so successful this year is because they have fully embraced engineering. Indeed, as Indy car racing fell into decline through the opening years of the new century many longtime Indy car engineers made the move to NASCAR with Joe Gibbs and Toyota's TRD operation among their favorite destinations.

[muggle not]

Correct, the money is good and it does attract talent. However, the F1 drivers can't cut it in Nascar as they don't know how to handle the heavier cars. Montoya as only one example.

[speedsville]

All jolly well, but if 1 rod out of 8 is underweight by a few grams, everybody with half a brain can see that it wasn't done to gain a competitive advantage, but more likely a manufacturing error and unless the team in question builds their engines themselves, they didn't even have a chance to know about it or are they supposed to disassemble and reassemble every engine they take delivery of. And even if you can find an answer to these questions, punishing them this hard for such a minor deviation is ridiculous and completely arbitrary.


Just ask Clint Bower or Carl Edwards, or even Mark Martin about over penalties for minor infractions of nascar "rules" not to mention the Penske cars just
penalized for parts they just didn't like.

Racing in nascar is like playing chess with a crazy man.

[muggle not]

And yet the teams continue to try to cheat
Just ask Clint Bower or Carl Edwards, or even Mark Martin about over penalties for minor infractions of nascar "rules" not to mention the Penske cars just
penalized for parts they just didn't like.

Racing in nascar is like playing chess with a crazy man.

[call_me_andrew]

Of course it isn't an exact measure, but the fact that Nascar engines need a displacement this huge to generate 900hp says a lot about their degree of efficiency or lack thereof.
I think the penalty is grossly unjust. NASCAR could not prove that it was malice, nor could they prove that it gave the car any advantage, so the team is hugely punished for a manufacturing error they had no means of detecting beforehand. Docking points for something like that torpedoes the cost cutting intentions of the whole rule. Now engine suppliers will be required to double and triple check each and every part to aviation standards, which will crank the price of engines to aviation standards, too. And teams will be required to cross-check, too, which means additional personnel and additional cost, because if they don't they could find themselves being handed crippling fines and huge point deductions for no fault of their own.

Penalties need to be stiff to deter future rule breakers.

Suppose the penalty was lighter, then a different team wins a race and one of their connecting rods is 4 grams underweight. They say it's the same defect Matt Kenseth suffered. Would you believe them?

A Formula One engine makes about 215lb-ft (291Nm) at 17,000rpm (only 1,000rpm less than the rev limit). That's not a particularly impressive torque curve. This isn't much of a problem for an F1 car because there are 7 gears to choose from. The fact that these engines need so many gears to get moving says a lot about their efficiency or lack thereof.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Penalties need to be stiff to deter future rule breakers.

Suppose the penalty was lighter, then a different team wins a race and one of their connecting rods is 4 grams underweight. They say it's the same defect Matt Kenseth suffered. Would you believe them?

If that happened again, NASCAR could set an engine expert to the task and there would be two options:

a) They find out that there is distinct advantage and they fine the raw crap out of them.
b) They find out that it is a manufacturing ptoblem, in which case the engine supplier gets the fine of his sorry life.

As I see the situation so far, nobody could even provide a hint of why a slightly underweight part would provide any performance advantage. A Sprint Cup car weighs 3.500 pounds, that's more than one and a half ton or more exactly 1.587.000 grams. With the part being 4 grams underweight, it can't possibly be a weight advantage. None of the many analysts, nor NASCAR nor anyone in here could say what they could possibly gain from it, so I still think it was a manufacturing error and they punished the wrong people for it. The engine supplier should have been fined, not the team that bought them in good faith.


A Formula One engine makes about 215lb-ft (291Nm) at 17,000rpm (only 1,000rpm less than the rev limit). That's not a particularly impressive torque curve. This isn't much of a problem for an F1 car because there are 7 gears to choose from. The fact that these engines need so many gears to get moving says a lot about their efficiency or lack thereof.

A Formula One engine is built for power, not torque and your data make no sense as the most torque is generated in the mid-range, not the top-range. On top of that, an F1 car weighs about a third of a Sprint Cup car, so they don't need as much torque to get moving. In fact too much torque is poison to an F1 car. An F1 car has about 1.2 hp per ton, a Sprint Cup car has a bit more than 0.6 hp per ton.
And your last sentence doesn't even make sense when drunk. An F1 car has 7 gears, because less would be meaning to waste engine power.

[muggle not]

You need to understand Nascar:

a). Nascar has stated many times that there are three things you don't touch., Engine, Tires, and Fuel.........any changes regardless how minor will get you huge fines. All teams in Nascar know that and they take their chances when they do not comply with the rules.

b). Nascar has previously stated that they cannot and will not attempt to fine suppliers. The team is totally responsible for all infractions. It is up to the team to make sure that the equipment that is supplied is up to the rules and standards.

[call_me_andrew]

If that happened again, NASCAR could set an engine expert to the task and there would be two options:

a) They find out that there is distinct advantage and they fine the raw crap out of them.
b) They find out that it is a manufacturing ptoblem, in which case the engine supplier gets the fine of his sorry life.

As I see the situation so far, nobody could even provide a hint of why a slightly underweight part would provide any performance advantage. A Sprint Cup car weighs 3.500 pounds, that's more than one and a half ton or more exactly 1.587.000 grams. With the part being 4 grams underweight, it can't possibly be a weight advantage. None of the many analysts, nor NASCAR nor anyone in here could say what they could possibly gain from it, so I still think it was a manufacturing error and they punished the wrong people for it. The engine supplier should have been fined, not the team that bought them in good faith.



A Formula One engine is built for power, not torque and your data make no sense as the most torque is generated in the mid-range, not the top-range. On top of that, an F1 car weighs about a third of a Sprint Cup car, so they don't need as much torque to get moving. In fact too much torque is poison to an F1 car. An F1 car has about 1.2 hp per ton, a Sprint Cup car has a bit more than 0.6 hp per ton.
And your last sentence doesn't even make sense when drunk. An F1 car has 7 gears, because less would be meaning to waste engine power.

So an F1 engine is only built to make horsepower and not torque because it's in such a light car; whereas a Cup Car needs more torque to overcome its own weight? Well gee, that makes it sound like an F1-like ratio of horsepower to displacement would be disadvantageous for a Cup Car.

I took your last sentence and swapped a few nouns. The point is that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

EDIT: And I didn't just make up those torque numbers. Refer to the chart at the bottom of the page.

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/comparison_of_cup_to_f1.htm

[Mark]

Right. Which is why Diesel engines are used in heavy vehicles as they have a lot of torque at the expense of power.

[call_me_andrew]

a). Nascar has stated many times that there are three things you don't touch., Engine, Tires, and Fuel.........any changes regardless how minor will get you huge fines. All teams in Nascar know that and they take their chances when they do not comply with the rules.

You forgot traction control. NASCAR has preemptively threatened a lifetime ban for that.

[Rollo]

Right. Which is why Diesel engines are used in heavy vehicles as they have a lot of torque at the expense of power.

Diesel engines are used in heavy vehicles because they cost less to run. A diesel will typically use between 20-30% less fuel and because the engines are built tougher due to higher compression ratios, have a longer usable life and a longer time between maintenance.

The power-torque trade off is almost entirely irrelevant. Large things use diesel because costs drive them to do so. Lower input costs = higher profits. If gas turbines or electric motors were cheaper to run, then that's what would be built because that's what the market would demand.

[essie]

any cheat should be disqualified but it is always down to if they get caught....

[speedsville]

Diesel engines are used in heavy vehicles because they cost less to run. A diesel will typically use between 20-30% less fuel and because the engines are built tougher due to higher compression ratios, have a longer usable life and a longer time between maintenance.

The power-torque trade off is almost entirely irrelevant. Large things use diesel because costs drive them to do so. Lower input costs = higher profits. If gas turbines or electric motors were cheaper to run, then that's what would be built because that's what the market would demand.


I've tried to explain the touque/ horsepower deal for years.
Unless someone is open to think about it the old wives tales win out each time.

I worked for Perkins diesel for a while, Diesels are awful to live with but get better efficiency and as you wrote
heavy duty enough to put in years of service.

Remember Diesel fuel was cheaper for years and yielded about 15% better fuel per output.

The very close tolerance fuel pump was the only real weak point, and if done right and the fuel kept clean it would go a long way too.

[Majks21]

Well it happens rules are meant to be broken :)

no

Jimmy Johnson is my favorite, How do you say to involve in cheating matter. If you have proofs show me here.

[flatheader]

Agree that there is always going to be an incentive to cheat and everyone does. Some get caught, many don't.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If anyone thinks F1 cars are the top of the charts for engineering, they might be right, but money talks and NASCAR teams spend more money per car than any other form of racing pretty much. To take that anvil of a motor, that is low tech, and extract 900 hp out of it is work. 20 years ago they had 700 hp maybe....and now they are pushing 950 apparently. That didn't happen by accident. So when we have a penalty like this, you can bet there was a reason that pushrod was light. They weigh all the parts. TRD is lying through their teeth...