Re: more on the shock issue.............

x-no-archive: yes

JR. wrote:
> From the Jayski site:
>
> More on the Shock issue from Dover, expect NASCAR Rule: Roush Racing
> president Geoff Smith said he expects NASCAR officials to issue a
> technical bulletin as early as Friday outlawing the trick shock
> absorbers used by Hendrick Motorsports teammates #48-Jimmie Johnson
> and #5-Kyle Busch in their 1-2 finish Sunday at Dover International
> Speedway. Instead of soaking up bumps, as shocks normally are designed
> to do, Smith said the Hendrick cars' shocks were designed almost to
> work in reverse; every time they hit a bump, the shocks jacked up the
> car's rear end for about 15 seconds. Because cars encounter frequent
> bumps at Dover, the shocks apparently kept the Hendrick cars' tails
> elevated about an inch beyond what NASCAR rules allow for most of the
> race, directing more air to the cars' rear spoilers and creating extra
> aerodynamic "downforce" that helped the cars stick to the track.
> Cheating? Not exactly, Smith said. "It was clearly an ingenious
> engineering exercise, and they ought to be commended for their
> ingenuity," he said. Johnson's team declined comment through a
> spokesperson.

if NASCAR says that the spoilers can be no higher off the ground than
XX amount, and the shocks kept the spoilers at XX + X for a good part
to most of the race, then IMO the issue isn't the shocks. the issue is
that the spoilers were out of compliance with NASCAR rules as evidenced
by the fact that 2 back ends were too high after the race. focusing on
the mechanism used to violate the rule--the shock--is beside the point.
however, as NASCAR isn't going to penalize a Chaser, it's all moot.

IMO innovation is using something to improve performance within the
stated--and agreed to by the teams--guidelines. for me, cheating is
using something to improve performance to circumvent or sidestep the
guidelines.

but that's just me.

Katharine

.

Relevant Pages

  • JJs Shocks
    ... Instead of soaking up bumps, as shocks normally are designed to do, ... Smith said the Hendrick cars' shocks were designed almost to work in ... Because cars encounter frequent bumps at ... the shocks apparently kept the Hendrick cars' tails elevated ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated)
  • Re: JJs Shocks
    ... > Instead of soaking up bumps, as shocks normally are designed to do, ... > Smith said the Hendrick cars' shocks were designed almost to work in ... Because cars encounter frequent bumps at ... the shocks apparently kept the Hendrick cars' tails elevated ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated)
  • Re: JJs Shocks
    ... >> Instead of soaking up bumps, as shocks normally are designed to do, ... >> Smith said the Hendrick cars' shocks were designed almost to work in ... Because cars encounter frequent bumps at ... the shocks apparently kept the Hendrick cars' tails elevated ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated)
  • Re: more on the shock issue.............
    ... >> More on the Shock issue from Dover, expect NASCAR Rule: ... as shocks normally are designed ... directing more air to the cars' rear spoilers and creating extra ... > that the spoilers were out of compliance with NASCAR rules as evidenced ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar)
  • Re: more on the shock issue.............
    ... as shocks normally are designed ... Smith said the Hendrick cars' shocks were designed almost to ... directing more air to the cars' rear spoilers and creating extra ... > that the spoilers were out of compliance with NASCAR rules as evidenced ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar)