NASCAR says Earnhardt Manifold was OK
43Fan
"-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:FUKv5.38051$98.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-13/SPTgordon13091300
> .html
> From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of operations:
>
> Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold, Triplett
> said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if we do,
they
> can expect the same thing."
>
> Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which
> finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett
replied,
> "Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be
under
> the same type penalty?"
>
> Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> replied, "Yes, we did."
My only problem with that is, how did they inspect Earnhardt's car. I'm not
saying he was definitely running the manifold, but, evidently the only way
that Nascar could find the unapproved manifold was during the engine
teardown, or they would've found it on Gordon's car in the pre-race
inspection. So, did they tear down Earnhardt's?
If they did, and he was found to be legal, then this is one time that I'd
say yes, the win should go to DE.. But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars the way
they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win away from
someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest question is,
which time were they lying?
>
>
> --
> -v-
> Go #3 #20 #8
>
>
>
Jeff Savage
Jeff Savage
"-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:IxMv5.38864$98.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Jeff Savage" <jeff_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AWLv5.1248$L41.5...@homer.alpha.net...
> > Hey bud. I assume you are referring to me, since I have been very vocal
> > defending my fave driver. Why not read the official GM response to the
> > fine... especially the parts where they say TEAMS and not TEAM. Gee,
> guess
> > I was right on, eh?
> >
> > Jeff Savage
>
> Matters more what NASCAR says than GM and NASCAR said DE wasn't using that
> cheating part. ( I feel a song coming over me)
kathy_a...@my-deja.com
> >
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-
You neglect to recognize that what probably happened in this instance
was that they found the suspect part and said "Well, we don't know what
we will do about that yet, but let's inspect Earnhardt's car just in
case we decide to do something about it.". And they didn't find the
part of Earnhardt's car even though the warriors swear they and a lot
of the other teams had been using it since April. Now who's lying -
and cheating too! Trying to cover up that cheating like a cat covering
its crap in a litter box.
> But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
> you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars the
way
> they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
away from
> someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest question
is,
> which time were they lying?
Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the explanation
of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems to
contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
And which manifold was your team racing on?
And imagine a Petty fan of accusing nascar of lying? Jeez.... maybe
you guys will do better with your mopars next year. They should have
moved to Chevrolet after 2 unsuccessful seasons, but they just kept
hanging on.
Kathy
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > -v-
> > Go #3 #20 #8
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
43Fan
<kathy_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pofqt$667$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hey Kathy, were you there(I was)? DE's car was loaded while Gordon's was
still sitting in Victory Lane. Did Triplett say they made the RCR crew
unload the car? No. And I doubt highly that they did. IF it was inspected at
all, it was a cursory inspection at best. As I said above, if they couldn't
find it on Gordon's car in the pre-race inspection, then they couldn't have
found it on Earnhardt's after the race unless they tore down the motor. If
you find me evidence that they did in fact tear it down, then I'll retract
that statement. Until you do though, you don't know. Period.
>
>
>
> > But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
> > you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars the
> way
> > they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
> away from
> > someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest question
> is,
> > which time were they lying?
>
> Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the explanation
> of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems to
> contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
> And which manifold was your team racing on?
I have no idea which one the PE teams were using. I'd doubt that it's
anything new from GM though(even since April) as they haven't been getting
any support from them at all since the announcement of the switch to Mopar.
>
> And imagine a Petty fan of accusing nascar of lying? Jeez.... maybe
> you guys will do better with your mopars next year. They should have
> moved to Chevrolet after 2 unsuccessful seasons, but they just kept
> hanging on.
*LOL* now that's righteous... First tell me how being a Petty fan figures
into your statement. Secondly, tell me how it is that Nascar isn't lying in
one of the two statements they've made. The two contradict each other.
Sorry, maybe you don't understand that word?(hey, you're the one that
brought up "understanding" remember Kathy?) Uh, lets see... the two
statements say something totally against each other? There, maybe that
helps?
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd says, "According to the heat conductance, Al is better (0.50
: cal/sec/cm^3 vs 0.38 for Mg)." So there goes m theory out the
: window....
That's for pure elements, though. I bet both of the manifolds were alloys
of some type, and without knowing the exact composition, it's impossible
to know their heat transfer properties.
:
: On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:09:12 GMT, Red 86 Vet
: <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote:
:
: >I read in another header above something about Magnesium conducting
: >heat better, therefore, would make the intake cooler. If the air
: >going into the engine is cooler, then the engine would generate more
: >HP. With a corvette, people add special parts to the intake to lower
: >the air temp going into the engine for an increase in power, I wonder
: >if this is an attempt to get lower air temps for greater power?
: >
: >>I'm more interested in what gains a magnesium manifold would give. Just out
: >>of curiosity. There has to be a reason they'd switch.
:
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <1rOv5.330$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
But _when_ did they inspect the 3? After they had said there were issues
with the manifold on the 24. What do you suspect DE's crew might do to
the car that finished 2nd in such a case?
:
:
:
: > But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
: > you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars the
: way
: > they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
: away from
: > someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest question
: is,
: > which time were they lying?
:
: Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the explanation
: of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems to
: contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
: And which manifold was your team racing on?
Of course, it flies in the face of the thermal conductance of the 2
metals, but hey, don't let facts interfere with your Gordon bashing.
43Fan
"Lloyd R. Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:8poj1r$h0a$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu...
Lloyd, the #3 was being loaded and in fact was loaded on the truck, before
the #24 was out of Victory Lane. The fact of the matter is, either
Triplett's lying about them "inspecting" it(if he meant anything other than
a 'cursory inspection'.. or Nascar's lying when they say the reason they
can't take a win from someone is because they don't inspect the rest of the
cars the way they do the winner. But Kathy can't seem to understand the
logic of that one either...
>
> :
> :
> :
William Traynor
Nixon defense doesn't hold up anymore...........
"Jeff Savage" <jeff_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AWLv5.1248$L41.5...@homer.alpha.net...
> Hey bud. I assume you are referring to me, since I have been very vocal
> defending my fave driver. Why not read the official GM response to the
> fine... especially the parts where they say TEAMS and not TEAM. Gee,
guess
> I was right on, eh?
>
> Jeff Savage
>
>
> "EGK" <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qh0vrsggvbgn6hksd...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:01:25 GMT, "-v-"
<vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
>
>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-13/SPTgordon1309130
> 0
> > >.html
> > >From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of operations:
> > >
> > >Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold, Triplett
> > >said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if we do,
> they
> > >can expect the same thing."
> > >
> > >Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo,
which
> > >finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett
> replied,
> > >"Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be
> under
> > >the same type penalty?"
> > >
> > >Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> > >replied, "Yes, we did."
> >
> > What's so damned funny about this is watching some of the Gordon fans go
> > crazy claiming everyone else was jumping to conclusions about the #24
team
> > cheating without any proof. Yet at the same time, they're more then
> willing
> > to jump to the conclusion that DE and every other Chevy had to be using
> the
> > same part simply because Hendrick claimed it was so. Talk about
> > hypocritical.
> >
> > There's an interesting thread in here about the properties of magnesium
> > different from aluminum. I'm no expert but seems there would have to be
a
> > reason for switching in the first place. If Magnesium does dissipate
heat
> > better then that's going to be a definite advantage I would think.
> >
> > Be interesting to find out for sure just who was using that magnesium
> > manifold besides Gordon but here we have a big problem. NASCAR and
> everyone
> > associated with it lie about as often as most politicians. Oh, excuse
me.
> > Nowadays they call it "spin". Back when I was growing up, it was called
> > lying :)
>
>
William Traynor
Even though NASCAR said he didn't use the same manifold? lol
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:AMPv5.341$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
> <kathy_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8pofqt$667$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <1rOv5.330$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> > "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid> wrote in message
> > > news:FUKv5.38051$98.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-
> > 13/SPTgordon13091300
> > > > .html
> > > > From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of operations:
> > > >
> > > > Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold,
> > Triplett
> > > > said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if we
> > do,
> > > they
> > > > can expect the same thing."
> > > >
> > > > Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo,
> > which
> > > > finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett
> > > replied,
> > > > "Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d
> > be
> > > under
> > > > the same type penalty?"
> > > >
> > > > Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night,
> > Triplett
> > > > replied, "Yes, we did."
> > >
> > > My only problem with that is, how did they inspect Earnhardt's car.
> > I'm not
> > > saying he was definitely running the manifold, but, evidently the
> > only way
> > > that Nascar could find the unapproved manifold was during the engine
> > > teardown, or they would've found it on Gordon's car in the pre-race
> > > inspection. So, did they tear down Earnhardt's?
> > >
> > > If they did, and he was found to be legal, then this is one time that
> > I'd
> > > say yes, the win should go to DE..
> >
> > You neglect to recognize that what probably happened in this instance
> > was that they found the suspect part and said "Well, we don't know what
> > we will do about that yet, but let's inspect Earnhardt's car just in
> > case we decide to do something about it.". And they didn't find the
> > part of Earnhardt's car even though the warriors swear they and a lot
> > of the other teams had been using it since April. Now who's lying -
> > and cheating too! Trying to cover up that cheating like a cat covering
> > its crap in a litter box.
> >
>
> Hey Kathy, were you there(I was)? DE's car was loaded while Gordon's was
> still sitting in Victory Lane. Did Triplett say they made the RCR crew
> unload the car? No. And I doubt highly that they did. IF it was inspected
at
> all, it was a cursory inspection at best. As I said above, if they
couldn't
> find it on Gordon's car in the pre-race inspection, then they couldn't
have
> found it on Earnhardt's after the race unless they tore down the motor.
If
> you find me evidence that they did in fact tear it down, then I'll retract
> that statement. Until you do though, you don't know. Period.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
> > > you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars the
> > way
> > > they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
> > away from
> > > someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest question
> > is,
> > > which time were they lying?
> >
> > Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the explanation
> > of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems to
> > contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
> > And which manifold was your team racing on?
>
William Traynor
from the "Non-Gordon" fan. So, the #3 changed some parts before NASCAR got
to the car? Is that what you're saying? You are hysterical - this is
wonderful to read. This is very good entertainment, I must say.........
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:xrQv5.346$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
> "Lloyd R. Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:8poj1r$h0a$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu...
> > kathy_a...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > : In article <1rOv5.330$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> > :
> >
> > But _when_ did they inspect the 3? After they had said there were
issues
> > with the manifold on the 24. What do you suspect DE's crew might do to
> > the car that finished 2nd in such a case?
>
> Lloyd, the #3 was being loaded and in fact was loaded on the truck, before
> the #24 was out of Victory Lane. The fact of the matter is, either
> Triplett's lying about them "inspecting" it(if he meant anything other
than
> a 'cursory inspection'.. or Nascar's lying when they say the reason they
> can't take a win from someone is because they don't inspect the rest of
the
> cars the way they do the winner. But Kathy can't seem to understand the
> logic of that one either...
> >
> > :
> > :
> > :
> > : > But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
> > : > you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars
the
> > : way
> > : > they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
> > : away from
> > : > someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest
question
> > : is,
> > : > which time were they lying?
> > :
> > : Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the
explanation
> > : of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems to
> > : contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
> > : And which manifold was your team racing on?
> >
> >
R a p p y
"William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:48Sv5.86343$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> So, I guess we'll never know, but until then, DE is suspect also, right?
> Even though NASCAR said he didn't use the same manifold? lol
Hard to say since they didn't tear his car down after the race.........
William Traynor
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8porsi$cvm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
R a p p y
> Triplett said they inspected it after the race......
Well......while they may have looked at it.....
they certainly didn't do any tear down.....
The only reason i know is that becasue the trams on the back stretch don't
run for the first 45 minutes
after the race is over so the Mrs. and i just sat in the stands talking and
watching the goings on in the pits.
In less than 10 miuntes after the race was over they were already loading the
3 car up........
While I'm sure they "inspected it" they didn't do any tear down. Mind
you.......I'm not at all saying
he did have the same part...... I'm just saying that the basic inspection
they must have done wouldn't have revealed it........
I don't care if he was or not........... It would be easy enough for GM to
show how many they shipped and to what teams. I hope they offer to do
that.
If Gordon was in the chease for the cup i would be pissed.......but he's not
so I don't care that much except for the fact that NASCAR never reveals the
rules.......and can hide behind that very nicely whenever something like this
crops up.....
William Traynor
after the race......I don't know what kind of inspection they did either,
but according to Triplett, they did check for the controversial part and it
was not on the #3 car.
And it wouldn't really matter if GM detailed who they gave the parts to, it
matters whether the teams actually used those parts during the race. You
know as well as I do that teams change parts throughout qualifying, practice
and so forth, it doesn't mean they used the parts in question.
Your point about the rules is a good one, I agree that they are not
consistent.
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8pot17$nne$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
James L. Pierce
>replied, "Yes, we did."
Yeah they probably glanced over it, just to say yeah we inspected it.
James L. Pierce
IRCop on the Evilspeak.ca.us.infinity-irc.org server part of the
Infinity-IRC.org network of servers Visit us today @ irc.infinity-irc.org and
www.infinity-irc.org
***Notice to spammers, I run ALL junk e-mail/SPAM through Spamcop.net***
James L. Pierce
Earnhardt's car, just in case they were asked if they did, they could say yeah
we did and we found nothing wrong. Now had they done a thorough inspection they
probably would have found the same intake manifold.
no one
Billy Goode wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:06:47 -0400, EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:37:13 GMT, goo...@mindspring.com (Billy Goode) wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:41:26 -0400, EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>Since the Orlando Sentinal article claims NASCAR did look at
> >>>Earnhardt's car and he wasn't using the same manifold as Gordon, I guess he
> >>>was left out of the loop or NASCAR's lying about that.
> >>
> >>Well, there is a thrid option. If we assume what Hendrick said about
> >>using the part since April, it's possible that other teams have tried
> >>it out and found no difference or that they were having better results
> >>with aluminum. Would magnesium cost significantly more than aluminum?
>
> >Did Hendrick specifically say that?
>
> Yeah. He didn't specify which cars though.
>
> >I really think the only thing that could offer good corroboration for
> >Hendrick's and GM's story is if other teams came out saying they'd also been
> >using the magnesium manifolds. Just the fact they were available doesn't
> >mean anyone else has been using them. I don't look for that to happen
> >simply because the other teams are probably all enjoying the hell out of the
> >#24 team's problems.
> >
>
> And the other little problem that if they admit to using them they
> know they will lose 100 points and $25k.
Yep, I said the same thing. They're not stupid. Nobody will admit to
using it or not.
no one
Billy Goode wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:41:26 -0400, EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >No, "bud". Can't say I was referring to you specifically. Like I said,
> >everyone associated with it has reasons to lie, even GM since Hendrick
> >kindly tried to pass on the responsibility to them. Lots of Gordon fans
> >were willing to believe whatever Hendrick said even before GM issued
> >something. Since the Orlando Sentinal article claims NASCAR did look at
> >Earnhardt's car and he wasn't using the same manifold as Gordon, I guess he
> >was left out of the loop or NASCAR's lying about that.
>
> Well, there is a thrid option. If we assume what Hendrick said about
> using the part since April, it's possible that other teams have tried
> it out and found no difference or that they were having better results
> with aluminum. Would magnesium cost significantly more than aluminum?
Maybe the other teams have not ordered or used their most recent
shipment of manifolds. I wouldn't think that manifolds would need
changing that often during the season. There's not a lot of wear and
tear on that particular part. I really don't remember seeing any spare
manifolds on the shelves at a shop that I used to visit (not saying that
they had no spares, they could have been in the back). They did not have
an in-house engine program so maybe that was why. There was an
assortment of rear ends, trannies, axles, etc. And lots of sheet
metal:-).
>
> In other words, IF this part has been around the garage for five
> months or so, it's likely several GM teams have played around with it.
> Maybe Hendrick's guys are the only ones who felt it was worth keeping.
>
> >I'm more interested in what gains a magnesium manifold would give. Just out
> >of curiosity. There has to be a reason they'd switch. It would be
> >interesting if any other GM cars came out and said they'd been using the
> >same manifold as Gordon but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe I'm just too
> >cynical but, like I said, you can't really believe anyone associated with
> >NASCAR because they're all going to say things that are totally
> >self-serving.
>
> True enough. I'd also like to hear NASCAR address Hendrick's
> accusation that two of their cars had been inspected and approved with
> the part in them.
>
> Or review the decision and overturn it just to piss off Jack Roush.
LOL. Wouldn't that just piss him off to no end?
R a p p y
> Triplett said NASCAR examined the #3 car after the race and checked the
> manifold, it was not the same as Gordon's, he said.
That's not what he said at all.........
>
> "James L. Pierce" <jlpier...@aol.communist> wrote in message
> news:20000913212153...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> > NASCAR has already said they don't do as thorough of an inspection on the
> 2nd
> > place car as they do the race winner. Like I said they probably glanced
> over
> > it, IF they even looked at it at all.
Wayne Mann
wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night,
>> Triplett
>> > > replied, "Yes, we did."
>> >
>> > My only problem with that is, how did they inspect Earnhardt's car.
>> I'm not
>> > saying he was definitely running the manifold, but, evidently the
>> only way
>> > that Nascar could find the unapproved manifold was during the engine
>> > teardown, or they would've found it on Gordon's car in the pre-race
>> > inspection. So, did they tear down Earnhardt's?
>> >
>> > If they did, and he was found to be legal, then this is one time that
>> I'd
>> > say yes, the win should go to DE..
>>
>> You neglect to recognize that what probably happened in this instance
>> was that they found the suspect part and said "Well, we don't know what
>> we will do about that yet, but let's inspect Earnhardt's car just in
>> case we decide to do something about it.". And they didn't find the
>> part of Earnhardt's car even though the warriors swear they and a lot
>> of the other teams had been using it since April. Now who's lying -
>> and cheating too! Trying to cover up that cheating like a cat covering
>> its crap in a litter box.
>>
>
>Hey Kathy, were you there(I was)? DE's car was loaded while Gordon's was
>still sitting in Victory Lane. Did Triplett say they made the RCR crew
>unload the car? No. And I doubt highly that they did. IF it was inspected at
>all, it was a cursory inspection at best. As I said above, if they couldn't
>find it on Gordon's car in the pre-race inspection, then they couldn't have
>found it on Earnhardt's after the race unless they tore down the motor. If
>you find me evidence that they did in fact tear it down, then I'll retract
>that statement. Until you do though, you don't know. Period.
>
>>
You must have seen the loading the backup or something,
because NASCAR inspects the top three finishers plus one other car
drawn at random out of the other 40 cars.
R a p p y
"Wayne Mann" <t...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:qcg0ss4d4jhm7um3f...@4ax.com...
I know that............ but they don't tear down them at all like they do
the winner.
I'm not suggesting DE got anything by....or that NASCAR overlooked anything.
Just stating what i saw......... and no.......it wasn't the backup I'm sure.
J Haag
>>
>> My only problem with that is, how did they inspect Earnhardt's car.
>I'm not
>> saying he was definitely running the manifold, but, evidently the
>only way
>> that Nascar could find the unapproved manifold was during the engine
>> teardown, or they would've found it on Gordon's car in the pre-race
>> inspection. So, did they tear down Earnhardt's?
>>
>> If they did, and he was found to be legal, then this is one time that
>I'd
>> say yes, the win should go to DE..
>
>You neglect to recognize that what probably happened in this instance
>was that they found the suspect part and said "Well, we don't know what
>we will do about that yet, but let's inspect Earnhardt's car just in
>case we decide to do something about it.". And they didn't find the
>part of Earnhardt's car
>
If they did do that then why didn't they give Earnhardt the win and why did they
say they didn't inspect his car then turn around and say they know he isn't
running the intake? You are backing up 43fans point. Not defeating it.
>
>> But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
>> you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars the
>way
>> they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
>away from
>> someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest question
>is,
>> which time were they lying?
>
>Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the explanation
>of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems to
>contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
>And which manifold was your team racing on?
>
The only thing that passes through the manifold on the sb2 is the air/fuel
charge (see http://www.gmpartsforsale.com/chevy_small_block_18_.htm for a
picture of the sb2 vs regular intake. sb2 is on the left). So the material for
the intake should have little if any effect on the temperature of the motor.
<snip>
--
J Haag
jh...@twcny.rr.com
http://paranoia.stardock.net
Remove NO.SPAM to reply by email.
-v-
.html
From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of operations:
Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold, Triplett
said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if we do, they
can expect the same thing."
Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which
finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied,
"Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under
the same type penalty?"
Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
replied, "Yes, we did."
Jeff Savage
defending my fave driver. Why not read the official GM response to the
fine... especially the parts where they say TEAMS and not TEAM. Gee, guess
I was right on, eh?
Jeff Savage
"EGK" <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qh0vrsggvbgn6hksd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:01:25 GMT, "-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-13/SPTgordon1309130
0
> >.html
> >From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of operations:
> >
> >Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold, Triplett
> >said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if we do,
they
> >can expect the same thing."
> >
> >Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which
> >finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett
replied,
> >"Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be
under
> >the same type penalty?"
> >
> >Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> >replied, "Yes, we did."
>
-v-
> defending my fave driver. Why not read the official GM response to the
> fine... especially the parts where they say TEAMS and not TEAM. Gee,
guess
> I was right on, eh?
>
> Jeff Savage
Matters more what NASCAR says than GM and NASCAR said DE wasn't using that
cheating part. ( I feel a song coming over me)
Red 86 Vet
heat better, therefore, would make the intake cooler. If the air
going into the engine is cooler, then the engine would generate more
HP. With a corvette, people add special parts to the intake to lower
the air temp going into the engine for an increase in power, I wonder
if this is an attempt to get lower air temps for greater power?
>I'm more interested in what gains a magnesium manifold would give. Just out
Red 86 Vet
cal/sec/cm^3 vs 0.38 for Mg)." So there goes m theory out the
window....
William Traynor
"James L. Pierce" <jlpier...@aol.communist> wrote in message
news:20000913180050...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> >replied, "Yes, we did."
>
> Yeah they probably glanced over it, just to say yeah we inspected it.
>
>
>
James L. Pierce
it, IF they even looked at it at all.
James L. Pierce
William Traynor
manifold, it was not the same as Gordon's, he said.
"James L. Pierce" <jlpier...@aol.communist> wrote in message
news:20000913212153...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Izzygiggle
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote:
Kathy,
Looks like you got a live one on the hook honey. You want to
bring him in or do you want me to? 8-) (for Mary)
Ken
>
> <kathy_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8pofqt$667$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <1rOv5.330$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> > "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid> wrote in message
> > > news:FUKv5.38051$98.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-
> > 13/SPTgordon13091300
> > > > .html
> > > > From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of
operations:
> > > >
> > > > Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold,
> > Triplett
> > > > said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if
we
> > do,
> > > they
> > > > can expect the same thing."
> > > >
> > > > Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte
Carlo,
> > which
> > > > finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s,
Triplett
> > > replied,
> > > > "Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had,
they`d
> > be
> > > under
> > > > the same type penalty?"
> > > >
> > > > Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night,
> > Triplett
> > > > replied, "Yes, we did."
> > >
> > > My only problem with that is, how did they inspect Earnhardt's
car.
> > I'm not
> > > saying he was definitely running the manifold, but, evidently the
> > only way
> > > that Nascar could find the unapproved manifold was during the
engine
> > > teardown, or they would've found it on Gordon's car in the pre-
race
> > > inspection. So, did they tear down Earnhardt's?
> > >
> > > If they did, and he was found to be legal, then this is one time
that
> > I'd
> > > say yes, the win should go to DE..
> >
> > You neglect to recognize that what probably happened in this
instance
> > was that they found the suspect part and said "Well, we don't know
what
> > we will do about that yet, but let's inspect Earnhardt's car just in
> > case we decide to do something about it.". And they didn't find the
> > part of Earnhardt's car even though the warriors swear they and a
lot
> > of the other teams had been using it since April. Now who's lying -
> > and cheating too! Trying to cover up that cheating like a cat
covering
> > its crap in a litter box.
> >
>
> Hey Kathy, were you there(I was)? DE's car was loaded while Gordon's
was
> still sitting in Victory Lane. Did Triplett say they made the RCR
crew
> unload the car? No. And I doubt highly that they did. IF it was
inspected at
> all, it was a cursory inspection at best. As I said above, if they
couldn't
> find it on Gordon's car in the pre-race inspection, then they
couldn't have
> found it on Earnhardt's after the race unless they tore down the
motor. If
> you find me evidence that they did in fact tear it down, then I'll
retract
> that statement. Until you do though, you don't know. Period.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
> > > you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars
the
> > way
> > > they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
> > away from
> > > someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest
question
> > is,
> > > which time were they lying?
> >
> > Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the
explanation
> > of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems
to
> > contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
> > And which manifold was your team racing on?
>
> I have no idea which one the PE teams were using. I'd doubt that it's
> anything new from GM though(even since April) as they haven't been
getting
> any support from them at all since the announcement of the switch to
Mopar.
>
> >
> > And imagine a Petty fan of accusing nascar of lying? Jeez.... maybe
> > you guys will do better with your mopars next year. They should
have
> > moved to Chevrolet after 2 unsuccessful seasons, but they just kept
> > hanging on.
>
> *LOL* now that's righteous... First tell me how being a Petty fan
figures
> into your statement. Secondly, tell me how it is that Nascar isn't
lying in
> one of the two statements they've made. The two contradict each other.
> Sorry, maybe you don't understand that word?(hey, you're the one that
> brought up "understanding" remember Kathy?) Uh, lets see... the two
> statements say something totally against each other? There, maybe that
> helps?
>
> >
> > Kathy
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -v-
> > > > Go #3 #20 #8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
"get it on, bang a gong!" - T. Rex
William Traynor
Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a manifold
like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
[Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
replied, "Yes, we did."
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8ppbss$auq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:ncWv5.86899$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > Triplett said NASCAR examined the #3 car after the race and checked the
> > manifold, it was not the same as Gordon's, he said.
>
> That's not what he said at all.........
>
> >
no one
William Traynor wrote:
>
> From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s
> Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a manifold
> like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
> [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
>
> Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> replied, "Yes, we did."
Then how come two different individuals saw the car being loaded onto
the transporter immediately following the race? They do not go through
the hassle of unloading the backup car unless they need it. So what's up
with that? I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the veracity of
statements from NASCAR®. They are so secretive about everything I just
don't know who or what to believe anymore when it comes to their
information released. You comment on the spin some people in this group
put on things, what about the racing Gods (NASCAR®)?
no one
Billy Goode wrote:
< snip >
> My question is whether the part is still "unapproved?" From the press
> releases it sounded as if NASCAR was dropping the fine because
> GM/Hendrick didn't get the part approved by the proper procedure.
> However, I still haven't read anything that said they can't use it.
> Maybe I just missed it.
I asked the same thing earlier. Will GM now submit the manifold for
approval? As long as it is identical to the counterpart and is available
to all teams, why not? Or will NASCAR®, in their infinite wisdom decide
that due to the controversy they will deny it and force GM to recast the
manifolds with the original materials? Would the shops that have them be
able to exchange any stock they have on hand? Will we every know the
whole story?
43Fan
the same thing(albeit on another board), but didn't have any corraborating
evidence.. 'course I guess they wouldn't necessarily believe it just 'cause
two of us said it either, huh? *g*
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8pot17$nne$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8porsi$cvm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
43Fan
he said..
Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type
manifold, Triplett said, "We didn`t find any the other
night [at Richmond], and if we do, they can expect the
same thing."
"We didn't find any" - they didn't do any other teardowns, that's why.
Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet
Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a
manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you
think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be
under the same type penalty?"
If they didn't tear it down, they don't know.
Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car
Saturday night, Triplett replied, "Yes, we did."
Yes, a cursory inspection. As Rappy said, the car was back on the trailer
very shortly after the end of the race. In fact, if I remember correctly,
Gordon wasn't even out of Victory Lane yet. I doubt highly that Nascar made
them unload the car to inspect it properly after they found the "unapproved
part" on Gordon's car.
"William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:JNSv5.86373$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Triplett did say they inspected Earnhardt's car for that particular part
> after the race......I don't know what kind of inspection they did either,
> but according to Triplett, they did check for the controversial part and
it
> was not on the #3 car.
>
> And it wouldn't really matter if GM detailed who they gave the parts to,
it
> matters whether the teams actually used those parts during the race. You
> know as well as I do that teams change parts throughout qualifying,
practice
> and so forth, it doesn't mean they used the parts in question.
>
> Your point about the rules is a good one, I agree that they are not
> consistent.
>
43Fan
"Wayne Mann" <t...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:qcg0ss4d4jhm7um3f...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:31:44 -0400, "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > >
> >> Triplett
> >> > > replied, "Yes, we did."
> >> >
> because NASCAR inspects the top three finishers plus one other car
> drawn at random out of the other 40 cars.
They don't(or at least in this case didn't) do a tear-down though. If they
didn't, the couldn't have known if the part was the same or not. If they
could, they would've caught Gordon with it in pre-race inspections.
43Fan
> Oh, now Triplett is lying, I get it.......this is good, real good, coming
> from the "Non-Gordon" fan. So, the #3 changed some parts before NASCAR got
> to the car? Is that what you're saying? You are hysterical - this is
> wonderful to read. This is very good entertainment, I must say.........
>
Gee, you don't read very well, do you. I didn't say anywhere that Triplett
is lying.. but he didn't state "how" they inspected it did he? I'm telling
you that they didn't do a tear-down of the motor,or the car wouldn't have
been back on the trailer as soon as it was. And, if they could've found the
"part" in question without a teardown then they should've found it in
pre-race inspections on Gordon's car.
As for the "non-Gordon fan", I'd be making the same statements if the roles
were reversed and DE won and Gordon(or anyone else for that matter) came in
second. In fact, I know a few good friends that are DE fans(and have some
sense of honor and justice) who feel Gordon was screwed on this one also.
> "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
> news:xrQv5.346$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> >
> > "Lloyd R. Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8poj1r$h0a$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu...
> > > kathy_a...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > : In article <1rOv5.330$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> > > : "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote:
> > > : >
> > > : > "-v-" <vxmNOvxSPA-2M*@altara.cominvalid> wrote in message
> > > : > news:FUKv5.38051$98.36...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > : > >
> > > : > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/sports/2000-09-
> > > : 13/SPTgordon13091300
> > > : > > .html
> > > : > > From interview with Kevin Triplett, NASCAR`s director of
> operations:
> > > : > >
> > > : > > Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type manifold,
> > > : Triplett
> > > : > > said, "We didn`t find any the other night [at Richmond], and if
we
> > > : do,
> > > : > they
> > > : > > can expect the same thing."
> > > : > >
> > > : > > Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte
Carlo,
> > > : which
> > > : > > finished second at Richmond, had a manifold like Gordon`s,
> Triplett
> > > : > replied,
> > > : > > "Don`t you think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had,
they`d
> > > : be
> > > : > under
> > > : > > the same type penalty?"
> > > : > >
> > > : > > Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night,
> > > : Triplett
> > > : > > replied, "Yes, we did."
> > > : >
> > > : > My only problem with that is, how did they inspect Earnhardt's
> > > :
> > >
> > > But _when_ did they inspect the 3? After they had said there were
> issues
> > > with the manifold on the 24. What do you suspect DE's crew might do
to
> > > the car that finished 2nd in such a case?
> >
> > Lloyd, the #3 was being loaded and in fact was loaded on the truck,
before
> > the #24 was out of Victory Lane. The fact of the matter is, either
> > Triplett's lying about them "inspecting" it(if he meant anything other
> than
> > a 'cursory inspection'.. or Nascar's lying when they say the reason they
> > can't take a win from someone is because they don't inspect the rest of
> the
> > cars the way they do the winner. But Kathy can't seem to understand the
> > logic of that one either...
> > >
> > > :
> > > :
> > > :
> > > : > But, Nascar's own statement prior to what
> > > : > you just posted was that they don't inspect any of the other cars
> the
> > > : way
> > > : > they do the winner of the race, so therefore they can't take a win
> > > : away from
> > > : > someone and give it to someone else. So I guess the biggest
> question
> > > : is,
> > > : > which time were they lying?
> > > :
> > > : Explained above, and I hope you can understand it. And the
> explanation
> > > : of how magnesium does not dissipate heat as well as aluminum seems
to
> > > : contribute to the questions about Gordon's car running 230 degrees.
> > > : And which manifold was your team racing on?
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, it flies in the face of the thermal conductance of the 2
> > > metals, but hey, don't let facts interfere with your Gordon bashing.
> >
> >
>
>
43Fan
"James L. Pierce" <jlpier...@aol.communist> wrote in message
> Like I said in response to V's original post, they probably just glanced
over
> Earnhardt's car, just in case they were asked if they did, they could say
yeah
> we did and we found nothing wrong. Now had they done a thorough inspection
they
> probably would have found the same intake manifold.
Absolutely.
43Fan
> From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s
> Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a manifold
> like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
> [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
If they didn't do a teardown, they don't know if it had the same manifold or
not.
>
> Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> replied, "Yes, we did."
See above, didn't tear the motor down.
James L. Pierce
>manifold, it was not the same as Gordon's, he said.
But there is a difference between them examing the car and doing a full and
thorough inspection. What they probably did was glance over the engine, just in
case they were ever asked if they inspected the car, so they can say yeah we
examined it.
NASh CARson bka Scott B
>What they probably did was glance over the engine, just in
>case they were ever asked if they inspected the car, so they can say yeah we
>examined it.
>
Didn't you know that NASCAR lets DE do anything he wants without penalty? Geez,
you'd think with all the advantages that DE has he'd have won at least 10 cups
by now.
**** WooHoo! GO #3! ****
Lloyd R. Parker
: Triplett did say they inspected Earnhardt's car for that particular part
: after the race......I don't know what kind of inspection they did either,
: but according to Triplett, they did check for the controversial part and it
: was not on the #3 car.
But we have people at the race saying they didn't do a tear-down
inspection. And if they checked it later, that doesn't mean anything.
R a p p y
> From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s
> Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a manifold
> like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
> [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
See........he never really answered the question did he?
He responded to the question with a question........
>
> Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night, Triplett
> replied, "Yes, we did."
and they inspected Gordon's before the race.............
starting to see the point?
43Fan
> > From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s
> > Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a manifold
> > like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
> > [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
>
> He responded to the question with a question........
>
>
> >
> > replied, "Yes, we did."
>
>
> starting to see the point?
Almost impossible to get that across, isn't it Rappy? Triplett's pulling the
same stuff Clinton's spin doctors did/do and most people don't see it! Geez,
who do I give a $1 to for bringing up politics! *LOL*
>
>
>
>
R a p p y
"NASh CARson bka Scott B" <nakedm...@aol.com24bytes> wrote in message
news:20000914104044...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> >James writes:
>
> >What they probably did was glance over the engine, just in
> >case they were ever asked if they inspected the car, so they can say yeah
we
> >examined it.
No....they did more than that.......but if it's a all like the inspections
after the truck or Busch races
they don't pull that much stuff off.....they check weight...... do a
"whistler" test ....check the height
of the car and angle and height of the rear spoiler as well as the main
template again......... take a fuel sample
and whatever else they wish.
http://www.rappy.net/images/Grant/Mounta44.JPG "whistler test"
If you want to take some time and look at the entire pre-race inspection
process I shot a few rolls of it from start to finsih at the ARCA race at
Pocono in July......... it will take some time but it's here if you are
interested and have never seen it. Remember ARCA cars are identical to cup
cars......
http://www.rappy.net/images/Grant/Grant%20Andrews%20Jr..html
I also watched the post race tear down of Kerry Earnhardt's Pocono win,
Setzers truch win, and Hornadays Busch win at Nazareth...... including what
they did and didn't look at in the top top finishers.
In all three cases they didn't look at the other top finishers nearly as
closely as the winner.
If Gordon's manifold could pass pre-race so could other chevy cars with the
same part.
( and i would bet they did) It's not a big jump to think that a maniflod
with the proper number just like Jeff's
and made of unapproved material (like Jeff's) could easily have passed
inspection in post race if it wasn't taken off the car like Gordon's was.
In the end.........none of this matters. They were "caught" or screwed,
whichever way you want to look at it and that's that. I'm just saying
that it's silly to think he was the only one. Typically when someone
gets "caught" with one of these parts there are many teams loading up and
wiping their brows because it wasn't their turn in the barrell.
Here's what i think of the whole mess....... It's the teams responsibility
to make sure the cars 100% or that what they are trying won't be caught.
While Hendrick may have a good case in the appeal.......they may end up
paying more of a price if they win than if they lose. Rick should
have just complained, and then dropped it.
He's spitting in the wind.........
The sad thing is that the win is forever tainted........The reason Gordon won
was pit work.......a late yellow flag
and a non-pit stop call on the last yellow. Combine that with the fact that
he's the kind of driver who can just seem to dig down for more when he can
smell a win.......
Oh well......... i guess maybe now they will be pissed and looking to prove
that win wasn't a fluke or dirty.
I guess some good can come out of anything. ;-)
R a p p y
> > > From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s
> > > Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a
manifold
> > > like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
> > > [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
> >
> > He responded to the question with a question........
> >
> >
> > >
> > > replied, "Yes, we did."
> >
> >
> > starting to see the point?
>
> Almost impossible to get that across, isn't it Rappy? Triplett's pulling
the
> same stuff Clinton's spin doctors did/do and most people don't see it!
Geez,
> who do I give a $1 to for bringing up politics! *LOL*
>
> >
We are not saying DE had the manifold on...........we are saying you can't
believe a damn word NASCAR says.
Red 86 Vet
non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for? After finding
this non-compliant part the first time, it would be a lot faster to
check the following cars. I do not find it at all unreasonable to
think what Nascar says about Earnhardt not having a non-compliant
manifold is 100% correct. What is so unreasonable about this line of
thinking?
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:18:33 -0400, "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com>
wrote:
R a p p y
"Red 86 Vet" <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
> If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
> non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
> wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for?
Gordon's car was still in victory lane doing all the hat swapping and picture
taking that goes on after a win.
By the time he was getting inspected DE's car was loaded up........
when there
43Fan
"Red 86 Vet" <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
> If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
> non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
> this non-compliant part the first time, it would be a lot faster to
> check the following cars. I do not find it at all unreasonable to
> think what Nascar says about Earnhardt not having a non-compliant
> manifold is 100% correct. What is so unreasonable about this line of
> thinking?
Ok, maybe this will help some, maybe not. Go here:
http://www.speedfx.com/viewpoint/karen/vkv091300.shtml
Read what time she says the info actually got back to anyone. What time she
says it was that she saw Robbie Loomis was "visibly upset".
Now also take into account what Rappy and I said about when DE's car was
loaded. I suppose it's possible that they would've told RCR to unload the
car, but.. the hauler was very probably out of there by then anyway.
Also, to try and confirm this either way, I wrote to a guy a know who's does
work for Nascar. He's in timing and scoring, not in any way associated with
the inspection officials, as well he's only now worked a few of the
races(all three series). His statement to me was that he wasn't at Richmond
and couldn't say what happened, but that when he's been there, they've never
looked at or inspected the other cars the way they do the winner, and that
they do not necessarily do a complete engine inspection.
So now knowing that, is it so hard to believe that Nascar didn't tear down
the motor, and that there's no way they know for sure if anyone else(DE
included) had that manifold on? That's all I'm trying to say here. The DE
fans keep acting like he should've had the win because he was perfectly
legal and Gordon wasn't. I'm saying that they don't KNOW he was legal.. not
saying he definitely wasn't.
no one
Billy Goode wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:41:55 -0600, no one <"no one"@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I asked the same thing earlier.
>
> and in an previous response to me
>
> >Yep, I said the same thing.
>
> My brane suks.
At least you have one, which seems to be a rare commodity around here at
times.
Lloyd R. Parker
: If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
: non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
: wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for? After finding
: this non-compliant part the first time, it would be a lot faster to
: check the following cars. I do not find it at all unreasonable to
: think what Nascar says about Earnhardt not having a non-compliant
: manifold is 100% correct. What is so unreasonable about this line of
: thinking?
But when did they examine DE's car? If it was right after the race, it
was _before_ they found JG's part. If it was later, it could have been
switched.
:
: On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:18:33 -0400, "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com>
: >
:
43Fan
chance that DE's hauler was out of the track! *g*
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8pr8b1$qo3$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "Red 86 Vet" <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
> > If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
> > non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
> > wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for?
>
> Gordon's car was still in victory lane doing all the hat swapping and
picture
> taking that goes on after a win.
> By the time he was getting inspected DE's car was loaded up........
>
> when there
>
> After finding
> > this non-compliant part the first time, it would be a lot faster to
> > check the following cars. I do not find it at all unreasonable to
> > think what Nascar says about Earnhardt not having a non-compliant
> > manifold is 100% correct. What is so unreasonable about this line of
> > thinking?
> >
Red 86 Vet
From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale
Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond,
had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think that
if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type
penalty?"
With that quote whether it was before or after the race is irrevelant.
The bottom line is Earnhardt was not running the non-compliant
manifold.
If you assume the manifold was changed prior to inspection, that has
conspiracy all over it. I think that is very unlikely. Not
impossible, but unlikely.
43Fan
> Lloyd, this is quoted from earlier in the thread....
>
> From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale
> Earnhardt`s Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond,
> had a manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think that
> if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type
> penalty?"
Where does he "SAY" that DE wasn't running the same manifold. All he did
was answer a question with a question, alleging that Earnhardt wasn't
running the same manifold.. doesn't say that he wasn't. Also, if you post
the exact quote from the article, you'll find ". . ." in there, leading me
to believe there was more said than the reporter reported.
Now you answer me this. How did they find the manifold on JG's car? My guess
is that the only way they found it was under the post race teardown. They
didn't find it in the pre-race or they'd have caught it then and made him
change it. Now, if they didn't tear down Earnhardt's engine, then they
couldn't know for sure if he was running it or not. And as you've been told
repeatedly, DE's car was loaded prior to Gordon's even leaving Victory Lane.
And according to the article at SpeedFX, there's a very good possibility
that Earnhardt's hauler was out of the track before Nascar even found out
that they had "issues" with Gordon's intake.
Red 86 Vet
>news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
>> If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
>> non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
>> wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for? After finding
>> this non-compliant part the first time, it would be a lot faster to
>> check the following cars. I do not find it at all unreasonable to
>> think what Nascar says about Earnhardt not having a non-compliant
>> manifold is 100% correct. What is so unreasonable about this line of
>> thinking?
>
>Now also take into account what Rappy and I said about when DE's car was
>loaded. I suppose it's possible that they would've told RCR to unload the
>car, but.. the hauler was very probably out of there by then anyway.
However, it has been stated that DE's car WAS infact inspected for a
non-compliant manifold. Whether in or out of the hauler is not
important here.
>races(all three series). His statement to me was that he wasn't at Richmond
>and couldn't say what happened, but that when he's been there, they've never
>looked at or inspected the other cars the way they do the winner, and that
>they do not necessarily do a complete engine inspection.
A complete inspection would not be necessary if NASCAR was infact only
looking for a non-compliant manifold. It seems logical that NASCAR
would open the hood, look at the manifold and it was either compliant,
or it wasn't. It is very black and white.
>So now knowing that, is it so hard to believe that Nascar didn't tear down
>the motor, and that there's no way they know for sure if anyone else(DE
>included) had that manifold on? That's all I'm trying to say here. The DE
>fans keep acting like he should've had the win because he was perfectly
>legal and Gordon wasn't. I'm saying that they don't KNOW he was legal.. not
>saying he definitely wasn't.
1. A complete engine tear down would not be necessary to look at an
intake manifold.
2. I am a DE fan, but I do not think Gordon's win should be taken away
and given to DE. Although, I would shed no tears if that were to
happen <BFG>
Red 86 Vet
>news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
>> If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
>> non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
>> wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for?
>
>taking that goes on after a win.
A quick peek under the hood to look at the intake manifold would not
require an extensive engine teardown, in fact, far from that. It is
not inconceivable to think this would only take a couple of minutes
assuming the inspectors knew exactly what they were looking for.
Having seen the non-compliant manifold on Gordon's car initially, it
would be very easy for them to spot on a second, third, fourth <etc>
car.
R a p p y
Try to follow this.............
by the time they started inspecting Gordon's car after if finally left
victory lane the
other cars were through inspection.
Red 86 Vet
>Try to follow this.............
>by the time they started inspecting Gordon's car after if finally left
>victory lane the
> other cars were through inspection.
Ok.... Easy enough to follow... Now, you follow this... NASCAR has
stated (via a rhetorical question by the sound of it) DE was NOT
running the non-compliant manifold. We, as Nascar fans, have to trust
what Nascar says to a certain degree. Whether it was changed from a
non-compliant manifold, or not, does not effect this discussion.
Nascar says he was legal...
Red 86 Vet
>Where does he "SAY" that DE wasn't running the same manifold. All he did
>was answer a question with a question, alleging that Earnhardt wasn't
>running the same manifold.. doesn't say that he wasn't. Also, if you post
>the exact quote from the article, you'll find ". . ." in there, leading me
>to believe there was more said than the reporter reported.
The "...." were in the original quote, which I took out, not to 'help
my case, but for ease of understanding. You are 100% correct, they
did not come out and say "DE WAS NOT RUNNING THE NON-COMPLIANT
MANIFOLD" However, it is abundantly clear that the intention of this
statement (question) was "DE WAS NOT RUNNING THE NON-COMPLIANT
MANIFOLD"
>Now you answer me this. How did they find the manifold on JG's car? My guess
>is that the only way they found it was under the post race teardown. They
>didn't find it in the pre-race or they'd have caught it then and made him
>change it. Now, if they didn't tear down Earnhardt's engine, then they
>couldn't know for sure if he was running it or not. And as you've been told
>repeatedly, DE's car was loaded prior to Gordon's even leaving Victory Lane.
>And according to the article at SpeedFX, there's a very good possibility
>that Earnhardt's hauler was out of the track before Nascar even found out
>that they had "issues" with Gordon's intake.
You said it yourself POSSIBILITY, not fact. Now, with the previous
post, NASCAR, for all intents and purposes said DE was not running
this non-complaint manifold. We must take what they say as fact.
Therefore, DE was NOT running the non-compliant manifold.
William Traynor
type of manifold. Triplett said they would have fined them too. No one else
got fined, so therefore, we can conclude they did not have it. That was very
easy, now wasn't it? Where is the grey area here? I'll take Triplett's word
over a spectator (Anti-Earnhardt) who watched from the stands. You guys are
just pathetic with the way you want to twist things. You are carrying so
much water for Gordon you must have a hernia. The Richard Nixon defense
(they all did it, we just got caught) doesn't hold a bucket of shit.
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:_q3w5.1116$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> No, he didn't say "they inspected it for that particular part".. here's
what
> he said..
>
> Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type
> manifold, Triplett said, "We didn`t find any the other
> night [at Richmond], and if we do, they can expect the
> same thing."
>
> "We didn't find any" - they didn't do any other teardowns, that's why.
>
> Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet
> Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a
> manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you
> think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d
be
> under the same type penalty?"
>
> If they didn't tear it down, they don't know.
>
> Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car
> Saturday night, Triplett replied, "Yes, we did."
>
> Yes, a cursory inspection. As Rappy said, the car was back on the trailer
> very shortly after the end of the race. In fact, if I remember correctly,
> Gordon wasn't even out of Victory Lane yet. I doubt highly that Nascar
made
> them unload the car to inspect it properly after they found the
"unapproved
> part" on Gordon's car.
>
>
> "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:JNSv5.86373$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > Triplett did say they inspected Earnhardt's car for that particular part
> > after the race......I don't know what kind of inspection they did
either,
> > but according to Triplett, they did check for the controversial part and
> it
> > was not on the #3 car.
> >
> > And it wouldn't really matter if GM detailed who they gave the parts to,
> it
> > matters whether the teams actually used those parts during the race. You
> > know as well as I do that teams change parts throughout qualifying,
> practice
> > and so forth, it doesn't mean they used the parts in question.
> >
> > Your point about the rules is a good one, I agree that they are not
> > consistent.
> >
> > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8pot17$nne$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8porsi$cvm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
William Traynor
lying......do you remember what you write? Guess not...........Clear it up
for me, will you? ha ha Keep squirming, you are making it more pathetic
*laffin*
*laffin* and *laffin some more*
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:xv3w5.1118$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
William Traynor
sat in the stands after the race?
LOL
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8pr50s$8f7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
> news:ii8w5.1177$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> >
> > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8pr31a$r1o$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:IzXv5.86928$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > > From the Orlando Sentinel: Asked specifically whether Dale
Earnhardt`s
> > > > Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a
> manifold
> > > > like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you think . . . that if they
> > > > [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d be under the same type penalty?"
> > >
> > > See........he never really answered the question did he?
> > > He responded to the question with a question........
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car Saturday night,
Triplett
> > > > replied, "Yes, we did."
> > >
R a p p y
> >
> >Try to follow this.............
> >by the time they started inspecting Gordon's car after if finally left
> >victory lane the
> > other cars were through inspection.
>
> Ok.... Easy enough to follow... Now, you follow this... NASCAR has
> running the non-compliant manifold.
NASCAR didn;t know Gordon was either untill they actually took it off the car
and discovered it was lighter.
GM says it shipped the maniflods to ALL the teams....... ALL of them.
We, as Nascar fans, have to trust
> what Nascar says to a certain degree.
LOL...........maybe you do. I don't......... they have been full of
shit for a very long time
Whether it was changed from a
> non-compliant manifold, or not, does not effect this discussion.
> Nascar says he was legal...
I never said he wasn't............ I am saying that they didn't know for
sure from the inspection they did.
William Traynor
car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on Gordon's
car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the same
problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
"James L. Pierce" <jlpier...@aol.communist> wrote in message
news:20000914095242...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Triplett said NASCAR examined the #3 car after the race and checked the
> >manifold, it was not the same as Gordon's, he said.
>
> But there is a difference between them examing the car and doing a full
and
> thorough inspection. What they probably did was glance over the engine,
just in
> case they were ever asked if they inspected the car, so they can say yeah
we
> examined it.
>
>
>
R a p p y
>
> >Where does he "SAY" that DE wasn't running the same manifold. All he did
> >was answer a question with a question, alleging that Earnhardt wasn't
> >running the same manifold.. doesn't say that he wasn't. Also, if you post
> >the exact quote from the article, you'll find ". . ." in there, leading me
> >to believe there was more said than the reporter reported.
>
> The "...." were in the original quote, which I took out, not to 'help
> my case, but for ease of understanding. You are 100% correct, they
> did not come out and say "DE WAS NOT RUNNING THE NON-COMPLIANT
> MANIFOLD"
let's stop there...........
Yes .......we are correct. The did not say he was not running it.
I guess you think the word game that was played in the statement
was just a coincidence.
I don't.......... it's the oldest political ruse there is.
Triplett never gave a yes or no answer to the question........
Why? Because they only found Gordon's because of the teardown and he knew
he couldn't say for certain other cars didn't have them because they were not
inspected I the same manner.
I'm not out to say De wasn't legal.........I'm just pointing out that
Triplett never actually said they know for sure
he wasn't running the very same part.
He didn't say it the way he did for no reason.......
R a p p y
> I read your post and it says there is a possibility that Triplett is
> lying......
Triplett didn't lie..........he just didn't tell us that he doesn't know for
sure what the truth was.
R a p p y
> As opposed to believing you (the most anti-Earnhardt fan in the group), who
> sat in the stands after the race?
> LOL
I can read a quote for what it is........... you should try it sometime.
R a p p y
> Yeah, let's fine the top driver and just glance over the second place
> car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on Gordon's
> car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the same
> problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
I think they found the manifold on Gordon's car was light well after the
other cars were done being inspected.....
that's what i think.
have you ever seen me say once in this whole matter that the 24 team was
"innocent" ???
NO....you haven't.
have you once seen me say that DE cheated in that race?
No ....you haven't.
It's not about either of those things............It's about NASCAR shoveling
shit on our plates and telling us it's ice cream.
Red 86 Vet
Darlene :)
>
> >
> >Try to follow this.............
> >by the time they started inspecting Gordon's car after if finally left
> >victory lane the
> > other cars were through inspection.
>
> Ok.... Easy enough to follow... Now, you follow this... NASCAR has
> stated (via a rhetorical question by the sound of it) DE was NOT
> what Nascar says to a certain degree. Whether it was changed from a
> non-compliant manifold, or not, does not effect this discussion.
> Nascar says he was legal...
I have yet to see where NASCAR *actually confirmed* that any
other driver *positively* was not racing at RIR with the
unapproved part. The part came from GM, I guess anything is
possible, but I do find it hard to believe that the same
manifold was not distributed to other teams. There must be
at least a hundred intake manifolds in the team garages with
that same part number, and the one on JG's car is the ONLY
one made out of magnesium ??? I wouldn't bet on it.
A few other questions I'd like Triplett to answer is : why
wasn't the illegal part found during pre-race inspection ?
If it was only noticed upon tear-down, why weren't any of
the other Chevys torn down & inspected ? If all they had to
do was lift the hood to do post-race inspection & verify no
other car had the magnesium manifold, why would it not have
been detected at pre-race inspection ? How many times have
pre-race inspectors ignored an unapproved part, figuring
they would only bring it up if the car won ?
It doesn't all make sense.
JMHO
Darlene :)
~Racing, the only sport that requires 2 balls~
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/dar-az/
For those that find my witticism capricious, your diaphanous
genius is astounding !!!
Red 86 Vet
>the other Chevys torn down & inspected ? If all they had to
>do was lift the hood to do post-race inspection & verify no
>other car had the magnesium manifold, why would it not have
>been detected at pre-race inspection ?
I do not know the appearance differences between Aluminum and
Magnesium. Do they look and feel the same? If specifically looking
for a manifold problem, I would suspect it would be a rather simple
matter of looking under the hood. The intake manifold is something
easy to see, with little obstrustion. I would suspect after finding
this manifold problem, it would not even be necessary to take the
entire engine apart on all other cars suspected of running this part.
43Fan
> >"Red 86 Vet" <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> >news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
> >> If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
> >> non-compliant part, then decided to examine Earnhardt's manifold,
> >> wouldn't they know exactly what they were looking for? After finding
> >> this non-compliant part the first time, it would be a lot faster to
> >> check the following cars. I do not find it at all unreasonable to
> >> think what Nascar says about Earnhardt not having a non-compliant
> >> manifold is 100% correct. What is so unreasonable about this line of
> >> thinking?
>
> >
> >loaded. I suppose it's possible that they would've told RCR to unload
the
> >car, but.. the hauler was very probably out of there by then anyway.
>
> non-compliant manifold. Whether in or out of the hauler is not
> important here.
NO IT WASN'T! Geez.. Go read what Triplett said, I'm not posting it again,
but, he did NOT say that they inspected DE's car for a non-approved
manifold. Ok, the hell with it, I'll post it again, but from memory, if you
want the exact quote go look it up. When asked if DE's car had the same
manifold, all Triplett said was "if he was don't you think he'd be going
through the same kind of penalty?" When asked if they inspected DE's car, he
said "yes we did". Now, all I'm trying to get you to understand is that
Triplett did not specifically say that DE wasn't running it. He sidestepped
the question with a question. And, he did not say that they inspected it
specifically for the manifold. In fact at the time they inspected DE's car,
they didn't even know anything about Gordon's being not approved. Go read
the article I posted the link to above. Robbie Loomis didn't know about the
"issues" Nascar had with the manifold until almost 1:00am! DE's hauler was
probably out of the racetrack by then.
>
>
> >races(all three series). His statement to me was that he wasn't at
Richmond
> >and couldn't say what happened, but that when he's been there, they've
never
> >looked at or inspected the other cars the way they do the winner, and
that
> >they do not necessarily do a complete engine inspection.
>
> A complete inspection would not be necessary if NASCAR was infact only
> looking for a non-compliant manifold. It seems logical that NASCAR
> would open the hood, look at the manifold and it was either compliant,
> or it wasn't. It is very black and white.
>
>
> >So now knowing that, is it so hard to believe that Nascar didn't tear
down
> >the motor, and that there's no way they know for sure if anyone else(DE
> >included) had that manifold on? That's all I'm trying to say here. The
DE
> >fans keep acting like he should've had the win because he was perfectly
> >legal and Gordon wasn't. I'm saying that they don't KNOW he was legal..
not
> >saying he definitely wasn't.
>
43Fan
"William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:vfbw5.87399$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Yeah, let's fine the top driver and just glance over the second place
> car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on Gordon's
> car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the same
> problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
You know, you and I "get into it" over stuff at times, usually me downing
DE, but this time really shouldn't be one of them. I'm not saying DE
definitely was running it(my opinion is that he was, but I'll explain that
in a bit). My statement is that no one can prove it either way. Triplett
did not answer the question, he sidestepped it. As well, if they could find
the intake by looking under the hood, it would've been caught in pre-race(or
at least should've been). They didn't do a teardown on DE's engine(they
couldn't have in the amount of time). They didn't find the non-approved
intake on Gordon's car until everyone else was loaded up, and probably out
of the track, so how could they decide to check all the other finishers?
I don't see where that's so hard to understand. If Triplett had said, "No,
we inspected and tore down the engine in the #3 and it was running the
intake approved by Nascar", then I'd have to go along with you. And, to be
perfectly honest, I'd say that Gordon should be stripped of the win and the
win given to DE, but that's not what he said.
Ok, that's enough.. We've both spoken our minds far too much on this I
guess.. I'll just agree to disagree.
43Fan
> I read your post and it says there is a possibility that Triplett is
> lying......do you remember what you write? Guess not...........Clear it up
> for me, will you? ha ha Keep squirming, you are making it more pathetic
> *laffin*
> *laffin* and *laffin some more*
Ok, go read the post again. Between "Nascar" and Kevin Triplett, they made
two statements that contradict each other, so yeah, one of them is at least
not telling the full truth. You decide which one, that's fine by me, either
way it proves the point I'm trying to make. :) Glad I can brighten your day
Billy... ;)
43Fan
> Yes, they did. They asked Triplett if other GM teams had been using the
same
> type of manifold. Triplett said they would have fined them too. No one
else
> got fined, so therefore, we can conclude they did not have it. That was
very
> easy, now wasn't it? Where is the grey area here? I'll take Triplett's
word
> over a spectator (Anti-Earnhardt) who watched from the stands. You guys
are
> just pathetic with the way you want to twist things. You are carrying so
> much water for Gordon you must have a hernia. The Richard Nixon defense
> (they all did it, we just got caught) doesn't hold a bucket of shit.
No, he said they didn't find any. No where does he say that they
specifically looked for them. Geez... Come on Bill, you're smarter than
that.. or at least I thought you were.
If you don't want to take mine and Rappy's word for when the #3 car was
loaded, that's fine, I don't have a way to prove it to you. But, Triplett
doesn't have any way to prove to you(or me) that DE(or anyone else) wasn't
running the same manifold.
And, whether you believe me or not, if it was DE that won and got the points
taken away, and Gordon(or whoever) finished second and everything else
happened the way it did, I'd be saying the same things. At that point I'd
feel that DE got screwed unless they would've inspected everyone for the
part, and fined everyone that was using it.
>
>
> "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
> news:_q3w5.1116$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> > No, he didn't say "they inspected it for that particular part".. here's
> what
> > he said..
> >
> > Asked if other GM teams had been using the same type
> > manifold, Triplett said, "We didn`t find any the other
> > night [at Richmond], and if we do, they can expect the
> > same thing."
> >
> > "We didn't find any" - they didn't do any other teardowns, that's why.
> >
> > Asked specifically whether Dale Earnhardt`s Chevrolet
> > Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a
> > manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you
> > think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had,
they`d
> be
> > under the same type penalty?"
> >
> > If they didn't tear it down, they don't know.
> >
> > Asked if NASCAR had inspected Earnhardt`s car
> > Saturday night, Triplett replied, "Yes, we did."
> >
> > Yes, a cursory inspection. As Rappy said, the car was back on the
trailer
> > very shortly after the end of the race. In fact, if I remember
correctly,
> > Gordon wasn't even out of Victory Lane yet. I doubt highly that Nascar
> made
> > them unload the car to inspect it properly after they found the
> "unapproved
> > part" on Gordon's car.
> >
> >
> > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:JNSv5.86373$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > Triplett did say they inspected Earnhardt's car for that particular
part
> > > after the race......I don't know what kind of inspection they did
> either,
> > > but according to Triplett, they did check for the controversial part
and
> > it
> > > was not on the #3 car.
> > >
> > > And it wouldn't really matter if GM detailed who they gave the parts
to,
> > it
> > > matters whether the teams actually used those parts during the race.
You
> > > know as well as I do that teams change parts throughout qualifying,
> > practice
> > > and so forth, it doesn't mean they used the parts in question.
> > >
> > > Your point about the rules is a good one, I agree that they are not
> > > consistent.
> > >
> > > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8pot17$nne$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > >
> > > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > > > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8porsi$cvm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
William Traynor
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8prfmb$ag2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
William Traynor
weekend and try to enjoy this restrictor plate race ;-)
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:H5cw5.1228$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
William Traynor
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:D2cw5.1227$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
Darlene :)
>
> Yes, they did. They asked Triplett if other GM teams had been using the same
> type of manifold. Triplett said they would have fined them too. No one else
> got fined, so therefore, we can conclude they did not have it. That was very
> easy, now wasn't it? Where is the grey area here? I'll take Triplett's word
> over a spectator (Anti-Earnhardt) who watched from the stands. You guys are
> just pathetic with the way you want to twist things. You are carrying so
> much water for Gordon you must have a hernia. The Richard Nixon defense
> (they all did it, we just got caught) doesn't hold a bucket of shit.
>
> > No, he didn't say "they inspected it for that particular part".. here's
> what
> > he said..
> >
> > manifold, Triplett said, "We didn`t find any the other
> > night [at Richmond], and if we do, they can expect the
> > same thing."
> >
> >
> > Monte Carlo, which finished second at Richmond, had a
> > manifold like Gordon`s, Triplett replied, "Don`t you
> > think . . . that if they [Earnhardt`s team] had, they`d
> be
> > under the same type penalty?"
> >
> >
> > Saturday night, Triplett replied, "Yes, we did."
> >
> > very shortly after the end of the race. In fact, if I remember correctly,
> > Gordon wasn't even out of Victory Lane yet. I doubt highly that Nascar
> made
> > them unload the car to inspect it properly after they found the
> "unapproved
> > part" on Gordon's car.
> >
> >
> > > Triplett did say they inspected Earnhardt's car for that particular part
> > > after the race......I don't know what kind of inspection they did
> either,
> > > but according to Triplett, they did check for the controversial part and
> > it
> > > was not on the #3 car.
> > >
> > > And it wouldn't really matter if GM detailed who they gave the parts to,
> > it
> > > matters whether the teams actually used those parts during the race. You
> > > know as well as I do that teams change parts throughout qualifying,
> > practice
> > > and so forth, it doesn't mean they used the parts in question.
> > >
> > > Your point about the rules is a good one, I agree that they are not
> > > consistent.
> > >
> > > "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8pot17$nne$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > >
> > > > > > > So, I guess we'll never know, but until then, DE is suspect
> also,
> > > > right?
> > > > > > > Even though NASCAR said he didn't use the same manifold? lol
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hard to say since they didn't tear his car down after the
> > > race.........
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
I disagree with you William, Triplett said "We didn't find
any", he could have been thinking: "We couldn't have tripped
over our own dicks, if we were looking for them, either".
Just because Triplett said they didn't find any does not
mean they *actually* inspected the other Chevys immediately
following the race, tearing them down to the point they did
the #24, and *VERIFIED* that the magnesium manifolds weren't
being used for the race. I don't think they looked, that's
why they didn't "find" anything.
Darlene :)
William Traynor
Clinton. You are parsing words. Anyone who came away from those quotes
thinking Triplett did not inspect Earnhardt's car for the same thing is
living in fantasy land.
"Darlene :)" <dar...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:39C15423...@uswest.net...
William Traynor
should I wear...........
"43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
news:p0cw5.1226$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
> "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
R a p p y
> As much as some people want to compare him, Kevin Triplett is NO Bill
> Clinton. You are parsing words. Anyone who came away from those quotes
> thinking Triplett did not inspect Earnhardt's car for the same thing is
> living in fantasy land.
>
R a p p y
> Rappy, let it go. You are embarrassing yourself.
ah huh.........
far from it......
R a p p y
> Guess what? NH this weekend, and I'm going ;-) Let's see, which #3 hat
> should I wear...........
any black one will do...........
they hide the dirt......
>
> "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
> news:p0cw5.1226$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> >
> > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
no one
Red 86 Vet wrote:
> >If it was only noticed upon tear-down, why weren't any of
> >the other Chevys torn down & inspected ? If all they had to
> >do was lift the hood to do post-race inspection & verify no
> >other car had the magnesium manifold, why would it not have
> >been detected at pre-race inspection ?
>
> I do not know the appearance differences between Aluminum and
> Magnesium. Do they look and feel the same?
Aluminum manifolds an made of an alloy that contains both aluminum and
magnesium. Upon a cursory inspection they would look the same. They even
had the same casting numbers. The weight is where the difference would be
noticed. That would require removing the manifold from the engine.
> If specifically looking
> for a manifold problem, I would suspect it would be a rather simple
> matter of looking under the hood. The intake manifold is something
> easy to see, with little obstrustion. I would suspect after finding
> this manifold problem, it would not even be necessary to take the
> entire engine apart on all other cars suspected of running this part.
One of the problems that I see is that I read that by the time the
officials had discovered the problem it was something like 1-1:30 in the
morning. So it was rather late by the time the discrepancy was
discovered. Now two people in this group witnessed the #3 car being
loaded into the transporter almost immediately following the race. I have
no reason to doubt either one of them. An inspection of the car was made,
but apparently not a total tear down (something similar to the post race
inspection). By the time the officials knew about a problem it was too
late. The cars were loaded up and on their way home.
no one
William Traynor wrote:
> Yeah, let's fine the top driver and just glance over the second place
> car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on Gordon's
> car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the same
> problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
>
My understanding was the problem was not discovered until quite late (early
am?). Were the other cars still there? (not according to two people that were
in attendance)
William Traynor
car.........;-)
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8prma1$qub$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:bCcw5.87432$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > As much as some people want to compare him, Kevin Triplett is NO Bill
> > Clinton. You are parsing words. Anyone who came away from those quotes
> > thinking Triplett did not inspect Earnhardt's car for the same thing is
> > living in fantasy land.
> >
no one
William Traynor wrote:
> Rappy, let it go. You are embarrassing yourself.
As opposed to your fascination with Fudgy?
< snip >
William Traynor
leather pants bothering me with that one........
"R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
news:8prmkk$sto$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:tFcw5.87441$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > Guess what? NH this weekend, and I'm going ;-) Let's see, which #3 hat
> > should I wear...........
>
> any black one will do...........
>
> they hide the dirt......
>
> >
> > "43Fan" <sl...@hereintown.net> wrote in message
> > news:p0cw5.1226$l35....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> > >
> > > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:vfbw5.87399$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > > Yeah, let's fine the top driver and just glance over the second
place
> > > > car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on
> > Gordon's
> > > > car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the
same
> > > > problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
> > >
William Traynor
He IS an asshole.......
"no one" <"no one"@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:39C1624E...@nowhere.com...
>
>
> William Traynor wrote:
>
> > Rappy, let it go. You are embarrassing yourself.
>
Darlene :)
No, sir, I live in Arizona !
Have fun at NH :)
Darlene
Darlene :)
>
> >If it was only noticed upon tear-down, why weren't any of
> >the other Chevys torn down & inspected ? If all they had to
> >do was lift the hood to do post-race inspection & verify no
> >other car had the magnesium manifold, why would it not have
> >been detected at pre-race inspection ?
>
> I do not know the appearance differences between Aluminum and
> for a manifold problem, I would suspect it would be a rather simple
> matter of looking under the hood. The intake manifold is something
> easy to see, with little obstrustion. I would suspect after finding
> this manifold problem, it would not even be necessary to take the
> entire engine apart on all other cars suspected of running this part.
Then they need to fire all of the pre-race inspectors,
because they've missed it for the last 4½ months !
R a p p y
> At Loudon, I am going to sit in the stands and watch Earnhardt's
> car.........;-)
LOL
you going to louden? I didn't know that......
Pick me up a used DE manifold while you're there wil ya?
>
> "R a p p y" <ra...@themail.com> wrote in message
> news:8prma1$qub$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:bCcw5.87432$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > As much as some people want to compare him, Kevin Triplett is NO Bill
> > > Clinton. You are parsing words. Anyone who came away from those quotes
> > > thinking Triplett did not inspect Earnhardt's car for the same thing is
> > > living in fantasy land.
> > >
R a p p y
> It's better than wearing the Rainbow one, I get guys with mustaches and
> leather pants bothering me with that one........
chaps?
Darlene :)
>
> "Red 86 Vet" <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> news:a1b2sss6qq86fjdkm...@4ax.com...
> > >"Red 86 Vet" <no_tick...@alexander.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> > >news:2262ssonihbj6l2b3...@4ax.com...
> > >> If after they examined Gordon's manifold and discovered a
I agree with you 43Fan.
As far as what someone said about Triplett not being smart
enough to double talk, I have tickets to Indy I'd like you
to buy ..... half face value....(they are from last year,
but I didn't use them) ;)
Darlene :)
Darlene :)
>
> I have made my point, as have you.... I will surrender.....
>
> >
ODL !!! ($1 to someone)
Darlene :)
> > Yeah, let's fine the top driver and just glance over the second place
> > car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on Gordon's
> > car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the same
> > problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
>
> other cars were done being inspected.....
>
> that's what i think.
>
> have you ever seen me say once in this whole matter that the 24 team was
> "innocent" ???
> NO....you haven't.
>
> have you once seen me say that DE cheated in that race?
> No ....you haven't.
>
> It's not about either of those things............It's about NASCAR shoveling
> shit on our plates and telling us it's ice cream.
I prefer whipped cream with my ice cream :)
I am a fan of both DE & JG, to me it has *NOTHING* to do
with the drivers, it is all about NASCAR's behavior, and
their deception.
Darlene :)
>
> Guess what? NH this weekend, and I'm going ;-) Let's see, which #3 hat
> should I wear...........
>
> >
> > "William Traynor" <wil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:vfbw5.87399$_s1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > Yeah, let's fine the top driver and just glance over the second place
> > > car.........Ha ha.........Don't you think they saw the problem on
> Gordon's
> > > car and decided they better check the other top finishers for the same
> > > problem? Or they decided "let's screw Gordon this week"? ha ha aha
> >
The one that says "GO FOR #8 !!!"
:)
R a p p y
I hope the weather clears out for you.........it looks like they may not get
much practice time this weekend
--
Humor. Don't Leave home without it!
Rappy's Racin' Screensavers
http://www.rappy.net