Questions about Bowyer's winning car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harvick#1

Johnsons has done that so many times before, and they have been slammed.

I guess Nascar is just playing favorites again on this BS crap, gotta make sure Hamlin, Busch, or Johnson win the title :rolleyes:

and just remember Bowyers car PASSED post race inspection, the 11 and 48 both FAILED post race inspection, why the allowance of re-inspecting, and the 11 and 48 got no penalty. Nascar once again loses more credibility in my books

---

You really give me a giggle...you really think Brian France and et al would want to dump all over the RCR boys so the same guy who people have not warmed up to (Johnson) can win or one of the Gibb's boys? You sniffing something? I am trying to figure out how NASCAR wins if Shrub or Hamlin takes this. Neither has a big following compared to say someone like Gordon or Tony Stewart. If they are going to "fix" things, this isn't how they do it.....

The 33 was out. RCR can make excuses but it was out..but by a sliver. I don't believe for a second that the 33 was so much better for a trunk lid that was fractions of an inch higher on one side that by the way passed the post race inspection. This ruling is because the tolerances are so tight, even the slightest bump can take a car out of that tolerance zone and out of compliance.

Harv, you should be damn happy your buddy Happy wasn't the one pulled in....

RCR was pushing the edge of the rules but not trying to go over and the screwed up. That's it...good luck with the appeal....but I don't see them getting anywhere...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harvick#1

Nascar once again loses more credibility in my books

---

Yet, here you are.

NASCAR's official statement and RCR's release:

http://section102.blogspot.com/2010/...-for-rule.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Roy

Yet, here you are.

---

because Harvick still races in the series, if he leaves, I wouldn't be watching it anymore


and I'm sorry, being 1/16 of an inch short from the rear bumper is really believable :rolleyes: it was still cause by damage from racing and from the tow truck.

you, in all honesty, cant tell Nascar plays favorites, ever.

how many debris cautions come out when Junior is about to be lapped?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harvick#1

and I'm sorry, being 1/16 of an inch short from the rear bumper is really believable . . . . .

---

How much of a variance from the rule is acceptable to you?

Also, if I thought that the races were "fixed", as you apparently think they are, I would never pay NASCAR any attention again.

If you think that NASCAR is just a show with a pre-determined outcome, like WWE, why then do you watch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Roy

How much of a variance from the rule is acceptable to you?

---

You honestly think being 1/16 of an inch shorter makes a performance difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I am evil Homer

You honestly think being 1/16 of an inch shorter makes a performance difference?

---

Not sure. If you're going to say that a variance in rules is acceptable, then don't you need to define exactly what variance in acceptable?

Are you really serious that a racing or sporting organization should arbitrarily enforce rules? "Okay, a sixteenth of an inch over is acceptable, but an eigth of an inch over isn't."

well, go on yahoo and read the articles and read other fans posting on that. they are all tired of it. there are some saying that now the drivers should start slamming the rear bumpers to make them illegal. this whole penalty is way to iffy. how could the car pass post inspection, then taken to R&D to find one little flaw from an on-track incident and say its now illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harvick#1

well, go on yahoo and read the articles and read other fans posting on that. they are all tired of it. there are some saying that now the drivers should start slamming the rear bumpers to make them illegal. this whole penalty is way to iffy. how could the car pass post inspection, then taken to R&D to find one little flaw from an on-track incident and say its now illegal.

---

So you're sure that the only infraction came from damage from the on-track incident? You have documentation for that? Just because RCR makes this claim it doesn't make it so.