Penske's disqualified, Abel still out ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offcamber1

Can't we just start 34 cars and let Abel run? It's a big race track, give the bloke a shot.

---

it's happened before, in '79 and '97. Is Abel running Carb Day tomorrow? He's first alternate, so he should be in case there's a big wreck that they can't bounce back from. Long shot, probably would need to totally write off the tub and no spare available.

in '79 it was a controversy over trying to cheat the popoff valve. After a court hearing USAC allowed 11 cars a 5th day of qualifying, with anyone who could go faster then the 33rd place car an opportunity to tun. Out of the 11, only 2 made it.

In '97 two cars were added as a result of controversy surrounding the IRL's practice of guaranteeing spots for IRL teams. But only 30 took the green as there was a crash on the pace lap eliminating 3 and two wouldn't re-start.

Back in 87 I was assigned to Stan Fox in Foyt's garage. He crashed hard enough to break the tub, but he didn't want to take a backup and go to the rear of the field, so they took it apart, flew it back to England, fixed it, and got it back to indy in time for the car to get assembled. At 0600 on race day they were still putting parts on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

I agree the rules were broken, that much is clear. Why, and does the penalty fit the crime seems to be the question. I have found nothing that suggests anyone believes this was any enhancement performance wise.

Anyway, Penske has acted and I think it will all be put behind come Sunday afternoon.

---

I can think of at least one group of people who definitely believe there absolutely would be an enhancement in performance:

The people on Team Penske who made the modification.

If they hadn't believed it would make a difference in performance, why would they have bothered to take a chance with the rules by doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alangbaker

I can think of at least one group of people who definitely believe there absolutely would be an enhancement in performance:

The people on Team Penske who made the modification.

If they hadn't believed it would make a difference in performance, why would they have bothered to take a chance with the rules by doing it?

---

Because they're perfectionists - they couldn't stand the appearance of something that looked cobbled. I know that because I tend to be one also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alangbaker

I can think of at least one group of people who definitely believe there absolutely would be an enhancement in performance:

The people on Team Penske who made the modification.

If they hadn't believed it would make a difference in performance, why would they have bothered to take a chance with the rules by doing it?

---

You really don't understand the culture of the Penske organization. As Dave noted, it's a perfectionist culture and that isn't entirely about gaining an advantage. How does polishing the transporters make the race cars faster? Obviously, it doesn't, but it's part of the culture of perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

You really don't understand the culture of the Penske organization. As Dave noted, it's a perfectionist culture and that isn't entirely about gaining an advantage. How does polishing the transporters make the race cars faster? Obviously, it doesn't, but it's part of the culture of perfection.

---

I have washed every tow rig and trailer the day before I leave for a race, every single time for 39 years.

40' of RV and 24' of trailer is starting to catch up to the old rotator cuffs.

Years ago - probably 84 or 85, when I was a USAC official, the area for parking transporters was still a gravel lot. And every weekend, there was a Penske dude bucket washing those transporters, and polishing the chrome fuel tanks to a mirror shine. And by the next day, everything would be covered with gravel dust and someone would start over. I thought it was the modern-day equivalent of pushing broom.

I learned a few things by watching the Penske organization. One of them was to plate as much stuff as possible. It doesn't corrode, is easy to clean, doesn't need to be touched up every now and then, so you can just put the stuff on the car and forget about it, spend your time on stuff that matters more.

At the time I wondered if Penske owned a plating shop. Even the stanchions made from pipe and brake rotors were plated. Nobody else did that, but in Indy's humid atmosphere, it kept the area in front of his garages free from rust spots.

His budget for Blue Magic back then probably exceeded my yearly racing budget now!

Note that on his cars, even though the suspension is carbon, it's all be impeccably wrapped with some kind of shiny metallic film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alangbaker

I can think of at least one group of people who definitely believe there absolutely would be an enhancement in performance:

The people on Team Penske who made the modification.

If they hadn't believed it would make a difference in performance, why would they have bothered to take a chance with the rules by doing it?

---

Others have already made note of the true reason Penske made the modification - Perfection.
It was not a performance enhancement in any way, it's the same reason their cars always shine, their trucks always shine.
It was an illegal mod, and they should have been penalized, but if you read the history of that attenuator you understand that to a perfectionist that modified attenuator was ugly and had to be fixed.

The penalty would have been a slap on the wrist for anyone other than Penske IMO.

Does anyone think the DQ of the Andretti top 10 finishes is in concert with these Penske penalties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

Does anyone think the DQ of the Andretti top 10 finishes is in concert with these Penske penalties?

---

Define "in concert with."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

Years ago - probably 84 or 85, when I was a USAC official, the area for parking transporters was still a gravel lot. And every weekend, there was a Penske dude bucket washing those transporters, and polishing the chrome fuel tanks to a mirror shine. And by the next day, everything would be covered with gravel dust and someone would start over. I thought it was the modern-day equivalent of pushing broom.

I learned a few things by watching the Penske organization. One of them was to plate as much stuff as possible. It doesn't corrode, is easy to clean, doesn't need to be touched up every now and then, so you can just put the stuff on the car and forget about it, spend your time on stuff that matters more.

At the time I wondered if Penske owned a plating shop. Even the stanchions made from pipe and brake rotors were plated. Nobody else did that, but in Indy's humid atmosphere, it kept the area in front of his garages free from rust spots.

His budget for Blue Magic back then probably exceeded my yearly racing budget now!

Note that on his cars, even though the suspension is carbon, it's all be impeccably wrapped with some kind of shiny metallic film.

---

Anyone remember the Gurney Eagles in CART.? I stood there for a while at Toronto Indy. Gobsmacked. All white with the great artwork on the nose.

They were busted last year for the "push to pass" enhancement; was that aesthetics as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

Define "in concert with."

---

Just a guess, but I think once they came down so hard on the 2 Penske cars, they felt they couldn't let these (also) minor violations go with just a wrist slap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offcamber1

They were busted last year for the "push to pass" enhancement; was that aesthetics as well?

---

There is simply no one of consequence that thinks this was a performance enhancement of any kind, at least not that I've read. When you look at the location you can see why it is not. Couple that with the history of that particular item and the fact that it WAS ugly, you get the opinion it was aesthetics.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I doubt any serious multi year Indianapolis contending team doesn't push the envelope to the limit, and over on occasion. That shouldn't mean every infraction is death penalty level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offcamber1

They were busted last year for the "push to pass" enhancement; was that aesthetics as well?

---

And here we have another example of someone who just has no clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

Just a guess, but I think once they came down so hard on the 2 Penske cars, they felt they couldn't let these (also) minor violations go with just a wrist slap.

---

I'd rather not guess. My response will depend on how that's defined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

There is simply no one of consequence that thinks this was a performance enhancement of any kind, at least not that I've read. When you look at the location you can see why it is not. Couple that with the history of that particular item and the fact that it WAS ugly, you get the opinion it was aesthetics.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. I doubt any serious multi year Indianapolis contending team doesn't push the envelope to the limit, and over on occasion. That shouldn't mean every infraction is death penalty level.

---

Any reasonable person would agree with this. Unfortunately, there's a level of Penske hate that doesn't allow for anything but the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

And here we have another example of someone who just has no clue.

---

Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you, it’s okay to brand them as less intelligent than you — if not mentally flawed?

I’ve never seen any rulebook entry that says “This rule applies only if there’s a performance gain, and/or if any and all readers agree with it.”

I see no point in having rules at all if they’re not followed. I hope I’m wrong, but the overwhelming defense in this thread brings into serious question what average racers are getting away with at SCCA events. Not a good look to everyone running legally, if not a reason to not race at all.

Obviously the incident in this thread was not as egregious as other cases — like the one Offcamber1 very validly mentioned. But I stand unconvinced that rulebooks are only intended to serve as “popularly-accepted guidelines” open to endless interpretation, debate, and inferences that others aren’t thinking right, or are outright “clueless.”

Speaking for myself, I have a lot of respect and admiration for Penske. After all, he brought us a magnificent, massively-loved driver who graced us for a good decade until 1975, as well as many, many since.

But no degree of admiration precludes stringently following the same rulebook that everyone has to.

Eric, I feel like we're beating a dead horse at this point, but -

No one I have seen, certainly none of the commenters here, have made a case that the infraction shouldn't have been penalized. Rather, in every case I'm aware of it is the severity of the penalty for what is a very, very minor infraction. This should have been a slap on the wrist but it was a death penalty. That is what most of us on the Penske side have said. The penalty was way too much for an infraction that did not have any performance enhancement.

I'm going to leave it at that, there are other live horses to work with :)

Haha Barry, surely live horses are less messy than the comments I called out.

And Yes, the penalty seems to have been a bit much. I personally think it was intended to dispel any normal thoughts of “conflict-of-interest,” and in the end, Newgarden had a real chance anyway.

If the result is other teams more closely following the book, I’d call it “successful.”

Thanks Barry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you, it’s okay to brand them as less intelligent than you — if not mentally flawed?

I’ve never seen any rulebook entry that says “This rule applies only if there’s a performance gain, and/or if any and all readers agree with it.”

I see no point in having rules at all if they’re not followed. I hope I’m wrong, but the overwhelming defense in this thread brings into serious question what average racers are getting away with at SCCA events. Not a good look to everyone running legally, if not a reason to not race at all.

Obviously the incident in this thread was not as egregious as other cases — like the one Offcamber1 very validly mentioned. But I stand unconvinced that rulebooks are only intended to serve as “popularly-accepted guidelines” open to endless interpretation, debate, and inferences that others aren’t thinking right, or are outright “clueless.”

Speaking for myself, I have a lot of respect and admiration for Penske. After all, he brought us a magnificent, massively-loved driver who graced us for a good decade until 1975, as well as many, many since.

But no degree of admiration precludes stringently following the same rulebook that everyone has to.

---

This was answered by BLS, but there's one thing here you're missing. My criticism isn't about intelligence. It's about envy that's festered into prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offcamber1

They were busted last year for the "push to pass" enhancement; was that aesthetics as well?

---

PTP was an obvious performance issue. The attenuator was only an esthetic modification - no performance advantage at all. That's an apple vs horse-manure comparison.

Have to wonder if the last two penalties had anything to do with the Penske penalties. Probably not Prema, perhaps payback for a team starting the whole deal? All teams that are competitive will take advantage of anything they think they can get away with and that is expected. Rules are always meant to be evaluated by each team looking for a possible advantage and will always do so until the hand is slapped! If I am Penske, Ganassi, McLaren, Andretti I would expect my guys to study every rule word by word. Remember the guy who asked what the meaning of "is" is?

Roger (whom I am a big fan of) excised the problem when he fired Cindric and the two engineers. Bravo. He apparently made his point clear by DQing the 3 cars post race, letting everyone know he wasn't fooling around with rules adherence. After getting hosed by his own guys not once, but twice, I think he's made his point.

My objection here was the false equivalence of calling a clear instance of cheating, modifying a spec part, an example of "perfection" or "excellence." It is neither, but if forbidden by the rules simply cheating.

Roger got hosed by his own guys not once, but twice and has now lowered the boom. Good for him!

I would also add that when it was announced that IMS sold my immediate reaction was that there would be no better custodian for the venue than he. I do worry about what happens to it when he finally passes.

Kip

Many years ago on the CRB I became accutely aware of some of our members (esp. production cars) noting non-compliant items on other peoples cars and waiting till the Runoffs to wander up to a tech guy saying " is that .......ok?" and starting a witch hunt.
Back to 2025
I am told that a similar scenario unfolded at Indy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Many years ago on the CRB I became accutely aware of some of our members (esp. production cars) noting non-compliant items on other peoples cars and waiting till the Runoffs to wander up to a tech guy saying " is that .......ok?" and starting a witch hunt.
Back to 2025
I am told that a similar scenario unfolded at Indy .

---

As Harry Truman said, "the only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Many years ago on the CRB I became accutely aware of some of our members (esp. production cars) noting non-compliant items on other peoples cars and waiting till the Runoffs to wander up to a tech guy saying " is that .......ok?" and starting a witch hunt.
Back to 2025
I am told that a similar scenario unfolded at Indy .

---

Not so many years ago, I became involved in a case where a top competitor had filed an extensive mechanical protest against another top competitor's engine at the last Runoffs-qualifying race of the season. He evidently intended to nobble his competition at the Runoffs.

He darn near succeeded. His engine went off in parts, ending up in Topeka. I helped to expedite his appeal, which was upheld. He got (most of) the parts back, and thrashed to build an engine. Made it to Road America on the last day of qualifying, and won his race. The protestor was suspended for a year following an on-track incident in the race. Poetic justice, indeed.



As for the Indy business, if Team A dropped a dime on Team B, my reaction is, So what? If Team B's car were compliant, there would have been zero issue. These are spec cars. Penske and Ganassi should know that better than anyone.

Does anyone have knowledge of the actual airflow around the point where the attenuator attaches (the seam in question)? It's my understanding it is in a line below the aft most portion of the bodywork. I'm no aerodynamicist, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn the airflow at that point is either longitudinally reversed or vertical and certainly chaotically disrupted.

Any modifying of the attentuator, even clear coating I thought was a no-no on a safety device that has obviously been revised through some sort of failure that led to the extra layer and bulkhead. Surprised Dallara didn't say something along the way as they usually examine the attenuator after crashes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Nesbitt

Not so many years ago, I became involved in a case where a top competitor had filed an extensive mechanical protest against another top competitor's engine at the last Runoffs-qualifying race of the season. He evidently intended to nobble his competition at the Runoffs.

---

Back in the 80's I was chief of Tech at an IRP national and two SSGT corvette guys, once teammates who obviously knew all the dirt on each others cars, filed long mechanical protests. Well I can tell you when you're listening to several showroom stock cars of the same make and model going down the front straight at IRP, and they have different exhaust notes, something is up...

On the subject of writing good rules, one of the things protested was ride height - which because it was related to the STOCK vehicle, required removal of the cage and safety equipment. I don't recall if the rules at the time specified the fuel load required for the measurement, and whether or not there was some allowance for spring collapse under the rigors of racing.

I don't remember the specifics of what came out of it other than losing two members of my crew to babysit the cars while the stewards worked something out.

If you have rules someone must enforce them, or else get rid on them. Some rules do not make common sense. Others must be enforced or the racing will go away. Sometimes the rule makers need to make that decision. Most of the time they just dilly dally and just think "let someone else deal with that".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

As Harry Truman said, "the only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know."

---

That's a great quote. I ran into stuff like that when i was working. The company would treat almost anything new to us that some bright employee came up with like no one on earth could have thought of that before and so wanted to patent it and keep it secret.

My take on most of it was that there are an untold number of similar companies doing similar things with similarly brilliant employees, and most of what one company's employee could think up in isolation had a 95 % likelihood of being discovered before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

That's a great quote. I ran into stuff like that when i was working. The company would treat almost anything new to us that some bright employee came up with like no one on earth could have thought of that before and so wanted to patent it and keep it secret.

My take on most of it was that there are an untold number of similar companies doing similar things with similarly brilliant employees, and most of what one company's employee could think up in isolation had a 95 % likelihood of being discovered before.

---

Well, to extend the idea a bit further, the real difference between companies isn't the technical staff or workers, it's management. The more enlightened the management the more likely ideas will be encouraged and implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roland V. Johnson

If you have rules someone must enforce them, or else get rid on them. Some rules do not make common sense. Others must be enforced or the racing will go away. Sometimes the rule makers need to make that decision. Most of the time they just dilly dally and just think "let someone else deal with that".

---

My HOA needs to learn this. 250 pages of rules, the vast majority of which are not enforced unless there's a complaint, and so many are "Karen" rules. And just like the SCCA, rules changes are published in the monthly magazine, and the insert gets longer and longer. They complain about the budget but have no clue that maintaining and enforcing rules takes money.

Here's an example of the stupidity - the only approved colors for tarps are brown and green. Which means if you have a white, blue, or silver car you can't cover it with the same color tarp... House colors have to be approved of course, and the primary consideration is Light Reflective Value. Now the EU has a standard for this, but the US doesn't - it's all up to the manufacturer. So the exact same color from two different manufacturers could have different LRVs. To put a cherry on top, the HOA tells us that if the paint fades outside of it's LRV, you will be required to re-paint. Yet there's no standard of measurement either, and I'm sure the moronic Karens at the Association office wouldn't know how to use the test equipment if they had it.

And they have a whole crew cruising around looking for this stuff.

Why in god's green earth would you live in an HOA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Why in god's green earth would you live in an HOA?

---

Well, at the time we were looking (COVID) this was the only place we found that had a shop or enough useable land to put one in, at our budget. I have a little over an acre with a 2100 sq ft house, 2100 sq ft shop, and a half-acre of pasture.

As HOAs go, its not all that bad - 9 hole golf course, pool, pickleball, tennis, equestrian stuff, two lakes, dog park, RC flying field, shooting range, RV par, two campgrounds, full-size gym, rec room, hot tub, and a formal restaurant, bar, and informal restaurant, convenience store, gas station, all for $2K/yr. The community also has its own county fire station and police department.

Mountain community with an abundance of wildlife - bears, lions, elk, deer, all kinds of raptors.

My daughter pays more than that at her condo for a pool, weight room, and to keep the grass cut around the place.

All those amenities make it easy to stay active and meet people, especially when you move in your 60's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

Well, at the time we were looking (COVID) this was the only place we found that had a shop or enough useable land to put one in, at our budget. I have a little over an acre with a 2100 sq ft house, 2100 sq ft shop, and a half-acre of pasture.

As HOAs go, its not all that bad - 9 hole golf course, pool, pickleball, tennis, equestrian stuff, two lakes, dog park, RC flying field, shooting range, RV par, two campgrounds, full-size gym, rec room, hot tub, and a formal restaurant, bar, and informal restaurant, convenience store, gas station, all for $2K/yr. The community also has its own county fire station and police department.

Mountain community with an abundance of wildlife - bears, lions, elk, deer, all kinds of raptors.

My daughter pays more than that at her condo for a pool, weight room, and to keep the grass cut around the place.

All those amenities make it easy to stay active and meet people, especially when you move in your 60's.

---

As the old saying goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

it's not so much an argument about the rules, its the quantity of unenforced rules, and the constant upkeep on them. But yeah, there are a few dumb ones in there, like requiring a homeowner to screen an RV using fast growing greenery, and then telling you that you can't plant Arizona Cypress because it grows fast and then dies in about 10 years, while not getting on people for all the dead trees on their properties. We live in fire country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

it's not so much an argument about the rules, its the quantity of unenforced rules, and the constant upkeep on them. But yeah, there are a few dumb ones in there, like requiring a homeowner to screen an RV using fast growing greenery, and then telling you that you can't plant Arizona Cypress because it grows fast and then dies in about 10 years, while not getting on people for all the dead trees on their properties. We live in fire country.

---

Well Rick, that's why you should be on the HOA board, logic can go a long way. We can start calling you Ken :D

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

Well Rick, that's why you should be on the HOA board, logic can go a long way. We can start calling you Ken :D

Steve

---

I've dabbled on the other side of community government- we also have a community services district, which is actually government - the HOA is not and is bound by a different set of regs. I was asked to apply for a position on the infrastructure committee - we have a serious looming issue with our roads and water system. This is the second largest HOA by size in the US after the Villages in FL, but we are much smaller population-wise, and being an HOA with private roads we get very little tax money. So I threw my hat in the ring, along with two other respected retired engineers. Then one of the directors pulled some political BS and shelved us while getting his hand-picked alternatives instated.

I thought politics in the federal government (40 years Navy engineer) was bad....Guess I shouldn't have called him out on social media saying my vote for him two years ago was a disappointment.

The HOA side is like a high school popularity contest with the cliques lining up to support their guys - the equestrians, the golfers, the tennis people, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Why in god's green earth would you live in an HOA?

---

Not all HOA are what you hear about. My Michigan HOA focuses on occasional community social events and collecting voluntary dues to have a legal defense against development which violates our deed restrictions. While we do review plans for home changes / improvements we are resident focused - meaning there must be a compelling violation of setbacks or other items on the deed restrictions for us to not approve the change. We actively support home owners who are requesting reasonable zoning variances (typically to build out buildings for hobby vehicles).

Any residents who complain about other residents are told that perceived zoning violations or complaints about property use are up to them to individually report.to the city. They can not hide behind the HOA if they have an objection. We have existed like this for 75 years, have great property values, well maintained homes, and the respect of the city.