Was anyone wondering how Helio was so much better than anyone else at Texas?.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

Really, I didn't? I quoted a report from Tim Cindric that was printed on Indycar's own site and not disputed by Indycar. Do you really think Indycar would have posted, without comment, that note with the exact measurement's intact, if they, Indycar, disputed them. What more would you want for this to be considered "facts"?

Gary

---

An unspecified amount, it does not say whether that amount was plus or minus. Tim Cindric says it's minus, but that's his statement on behalf of the team. If IndyCar were to confirm that, then I would take it as fact.

A statement from Cindric and an assumption by you on behalf of IndyCar doesn't make what Cindric said fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DBell

An unspecified amount, it does not say whether that amount was plus or minus. Tim Cindric says it's minus, but that's his statement on behalf of the team. If IndyCar were to confirm that, then I would take it as fact.

A statement from Cindric and an assumption by you on behalf of IndyCar doesn't make what Cindric said fact.

---

Never mind the fact that all of this was posted on Indycar's own website without them disputing what Tim said, right? I guess you want notarized copies of the inspection report. Whatever.

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

So much hyperbole. Breaking the rules and cheating are two different things. Penske was caught breaking a rule, they were not caught cheating. Cheating carries with it the intent to gain advantage. Since even the other "veteran engineer" quoted in the article said that what the team did was a disadvantage, it could hardly be termed cheating.

With this, I am most assuredly NOT commenting on the other transgressions that have occurred because I don't have the facts in front of me. I agree there needs to be consistency in applying the rules. But I think there needs to be different penalties for cheating versus rules violations.


Gary

---

Did you read the article? The "veteran engineer" was quoted on what happens if the car is on the plus side of being out of compliance, which is clearly an advantage. "VE" says nothing about the minus side of being out of compliance.

Last years penalty with Wilson's car is in the article and part of what I quoted in post #4. for the Jakes/Detroit incident:

Quote:

---

INDYCAR announced penalties following the June 1-2 races at The Raceway at Belle Isle Park.

The No. 16 Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing entry driven by James Jakes was fined a total of $10,000 for violating Rule 14.6.4.6 and 14.6.4.9. Both violations were found during post-qualifying inspection for Race 1. The team was fined $5,000 for each violation.
14.6.4.6 (Rear Wing): The rear wing mainplane must be set at 0.0 degrees plus or minus 0.50 degrees.
14.6.4.9 (Rear Wing): The mainplane trailing edge height, as measured from the chassis reference plane, is 28.060 inches plus or minus 0.050 inches.

---

link:INDYCAR levies Belle Isle post-race penalties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

Never mind the fact that all of this was posted on Indycar's own website without them disputing what Tim said, right? I guess you want notarized copies of the inspection report. Whatever.

Gary

---

A simple confirmation from IndyCar on how specifically the car was out of compliance would suffice. Funny, you're the one who made a point of something being a fact and when called about it, you state your assumption, put it into the equation, and call it a fact. Whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DBell

A statement from Cindric and an assumption by you on behalf of IndyCar doesn't make what Cindric said fact.

---

Logic and fairness dictate we apply the same reasoning to your position :-

"A statement from an unreferenced anonymous source and an assumption by you doesn't make what Veteran Engineer said fact".

Both positions must be treated equally. If you dismiss Cindric's position using the quoted argument, you must allow the same argument to be applied to your position. Refusing to do so exposes bias.

C hip, A ndretti, R oger, T eams are basically running the show and they can do whatever they want. Fans? They just argue about it -- probably best to just let it go.

I see this thread has "The Usual Suspects." :p :