Harvick Penalty.

[Lastlap]

Nope, seems I got Ham/Hammed wrong lol.

I go with "Knaussing"... thank you @Highbank

 

[SteveMack]

Whatever the found issues... gotta push the grey area. If it's not written, it's not in the rule book.

Maybe Rodney 'Ray'd a few things...

Oh yes the "RAY" adjustments. " Just air in those tires Jack"

 

[Logan7]

I don't think the penalty was because harvick was speaking against the car, NASCAR has fined drivers for saying they don't like the car before (Hamlin and the gen 6 comments). I believe it just happened at a coincidental time, but RFK and FRM have already received the same penalty as the 4 crew just did

 

[PHANTASMICALITY]

ok so i heard a *very* interesting theory, they messed with the rear end of the car in event of Harvick backing into the wall, it would crumple more. Which at Talladega is pretty probable. (correct me if im wrong)

 

[SteveMack]

ok so i heard a *very* interesting theory, they messed with the rear end of the car in event of Harvick backing into the wall, it would crumple more. Which at Talladega is pretty probable. (correct me if im wrong)

I'm not correcting you but that wouldn't even be on the list at Talladega, maybe Martinsville not Talladega, backing into the wall there and your day is usually done.

 

[Lastlap]

I'm not correcting you but that wouldn't even be on the list at Talladega, maybe Martinsville not Talladega, backing into the wall there and your day is usually done.

No no... not adjusting the rear to continue, but so that the rear end is not a rigid causing a high G spike in loads transferred to the driver with this new car. Like Kurt & Alex's crashes.

 

[SteveMack]

No no... not adjusting the rear to continue, but so that the rear end is not a rigid causing a high G spike in loads transferred to the driver with this new car. Like Kurt & Alex's crashes.

Ok I misunderstood, I get it now, I first thought he saying there would be some advantage.

 

[PHANTASMICALITY]

Ok I misunderstood, I get it now, I first thought he saying there would be some advantage.

that's my fault for not fleshing that part out a bit more

 

[SteveMack]

Stunnoders! Kevin Harvick and the 4 team are handed a massive penalty for modifying a single source part! Loss of 100 driver and owner points, crew chief suspended 4 races and fined $100k, Thoughts?
This is funny because Rodney Childress will be back for phoenix, that's his next race, the last race of the year. In my opinion this was bound to happen sooner or later, Harvick's been complaining about the next gen car for weeks and now it looks like he's been blaming NASCAR for his and his teams own mistakes. As a painter this should be intresting to see what will become of that #4 car and who will drive it. Thoughts?

Apparently it was the deck lid, they are appealing.

 

[mtblillie]

Jr made a good point on his radio show. He was talking about all these drivers (or more specifically, Harvick) getting fined for modifying parts that are actually just trying to improve the part. Sometimes they are just trying to improve the safety and reliability of the part rather than trying to gain an advantage. The current rule is that teams must take these parts as is, regardless of their reliability or condition. This was originally designed to create parity between the cars and reduce cost to the teams, but has had this side effect where teams want to modify parts to improve safety or reliability but are getting in trouble for it.

 

[Camo Creative]

Jr made a good point on his radio show. He was talking about all these drivers (or more specifically, Harvick) getting fined for modifying parts that are actually just trying to improve the part. Sometimes they are just trying to improve the safety and reliability of the part rather than trying to gain an advantage. The current rule is that teams must take these parts as is, regardless of their reliability or condition. This was originally designed to create parity between the cars and reduce cost to the teams, but has had this side effect where teams want to modify parts to improve safety or reliability but are getting in trouble for it.

In Harvicks case them modifying the part for the sake of safety makes sense, but in Keselowski's case it's hard to see that because the safety problems weren't yet as apparent as they are now. I guess that point is valid, but only case by case, it doesn't exactly follow every case but for some you could see it. To be honest FRM's penalty coulda been either. You never know.