Penske's disqualified, Abel still out ?

[Peter Olivola]

I can read, and even interpret… seems you’re suggesting both named frontrunners are cheaters.

And/or that all are?

Seriously? This is professional automobile racing, not the defense of the republic or a religious holy war. These people are engaged in an activity that rewards their best competitive efforts. Up to and including finding the limit of regulations. Surely you're aware of the history of things being pushed beyond regulations. By calling it cheating you've chosen to apply a moral judgement. And that's where the whole thing comes a cropper. Participation in racing, unlike society as a whole, is strictly voluntary. A bit like society there are both written and unwritten rules of conduct. In the case of racing, those rules permit a much edgier, more aggressive approach than society. At no time does anything anyone has done in this sport deprive those not directly involved (by their own choice) in life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

[E1pix]

Little point replying to things I neither said nor implied.

Cheating is going beyond the rules, not riding the edges.

I was talking about fair play in racing and nothing else.

[DaveW]

I can read, and even interpret… seems you’re suggesting both named frontrunners are cheaters.

And/or that all are?

That's a common issue with this sort of messaging - implied meanings are often poorly conveyed. Therefore I tend to be overly detailed/precise in what I say, so that the necessity to infer intent from context is minimized.

[Lotus7]

I'm sure there is. We have it in SCCA Road Racing.

Is there some personal reason you can't let this go? Has this so deeply offended you that you have to display your outrage at every opportunity? How does this affect you personally?

I'm neither a hater or fanboy of the Penske organization. I respect them and recognize that any team with their history is going to be a challenge to any sanctioning body. They have been penalized for non-compliance.

What are you getting out of continuing the conversation? You might want to consider seeing someone about this obsession.

My apologies if my curiosity has upset you. Did you send the same message to Marshall Pruett at Racer.com, who is providing a seemingly hourly update of facts and his opinions.
I might also ask why you are still reading this thread if you feel the subject has been overworked?
Feel free to skip over any posts that I make from now on.

[Peter Olivola]

My apologies if my curiosity has upset you. Did you send the same message to Marshall Pruett at Racer.com, who is providing a seemingly hourly update of facts and his opinions.
I might also ask why you are still reading this thread if you feel the subject has been overworked?
Feel free to skip over any posts that I make from now on.

Curiosity? More like ginning up a witch hunt. You sure do seem to want to avoid any disagreement with your opinion. Were you expecting no one would disagree with you and that everything here would be marshmallows and pink ladies? As for Marshall Pruett, never met the man. I would imagine our conversation would be worth spectating.

[Steve Davis]

Hey guys.. about time we let this one go. We are all aware of the difficulty of WRITING Rules.. as well as the 'ABILITY' to READ them.. Often with conflicting interpretations. I've even WRITTEN RULES myself.. only to have someone else point out THEIR interpretation .. which I never considered.
SO.. the INTENT of the rule is sometimes (often?) NOT the expected result.

At this point 'interpreting the rule' has not been declared 'CHEATING'.. it's just a different INTERPRETATION from that intended.. or so it seems. And a penalty has been applied by someone that is NOT US... and I'm thankful for that.

Let's watch the race this weekend, see what happens.. and enjoy it for what it is... VERY EXPENSIVE ENTERTAINMENT.. that actually costs "US" NOTHING.

Steve, FV80

[BLS]

There is a fine line between "cheating" and perfection, perfection including reading the rule set and then designing to maximize the performance allowed by the rule set.

Smokey Yunick was often called a cheater, yet he simply read the rule book - I always like the cold fuel and then the 2" diameter 11 ft long fuel line, both within the rules...

https://www.carthrottle.com/features...-smokey-yunick

Smokey was, just like Penske, a man that outworked the competition.

[Offcamber1]

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

[RussMcB]

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

Thats what I was thinking, too (along with millions of other people).

Found this:

Can the Indy 500 run with 34 cars?

ChatGPT said:

No, the Indy 500 cannot officially run with 34 cars. The field is capped at 33 starters due to tradition and logistical constraints, which has been a hallmark of the race since 1934.
Why 33 cars?

• The 33-car field is based on a 1911 rule (from the first Indy 500) suggesting one car for every 400 feet of track to ensure safe spacing — at 2.5 miles, that equates to 33 cars.
• It's also a long-standing tradition upheld by both the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) and IndyCar.

[hdsporty1988]

Thats what I was thinking, too (along with millions of other people).

Found this:

Can the Indy 500 run with 34 cars?

ChatGPT said:

No, the Indy 500 cannot officially run with 34 cars. The field is capped at 33 starters due to tradition and logistical constraints, which has been a hallmark of the race since 1934.
Why 33 cars?

• The 33-car field is based on a 1911 rule (from the first Indy 500) suggesting one car for every 400 feet of track to ensure safe spacing — at 2.5 miles, that equates to 33 cars.
• It's also a long-standing tradition upheld by both the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) and IndyCar.

Except in 1979 and 1997 they started 35.

[Rick Kirchner]

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.

[alangbaker]

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?

[DaveW]

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

[stonebridge20]

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.

[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.

[BLS]

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.

[mmi16]

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

Define "in concert with."

[Robins Ken]

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.

[Offcamber1]

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

[DaveW]

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.

[BLS]

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

[E1pix]

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.

[BLS]

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

[E1pix]

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[Jerry Kehoe]

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?

[Offcamber1]

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

[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 .

[Peter Olivola]

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."

[John Nesbitt]

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

[Phil Creighton]

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.

[Rick Kirchner]

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.

[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".