NASCAR penalty costs Montoya a win

NASCAR penalty costs Montoya a win

There are 75 comments on the The Gaston Gazette story from Jul 26, 2009, titled NASCAR penalty costs Montoya a win. In it, The Gaston Gazette reports that:

SPEEDWAY, Ind. Juan Pablo Montoya screamed bloody murder. Not literally, but the driver who dominated the Allstate 400 was frank in HIS assessment of a NASCAR penalty that almost certainly cost the Colombian the race.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Gaston Gazette.

Ski

“Is It Friday Yet?????”

Since: May 07

Smalltown New York

#42 Jul 28, 2009
mike also stutters wrote:
People are looking for an excuse to tune out NASCAR. What are you... blind?
apparently i am. unless you have poll numbers, quit trying to impose your paranoia and heavy handed opinions on the lot of nascars fans. you won't tune out and nor will anyone else. empty talk. you'll tune in for the controversy itself.
No women drivers, no black drivers, one hispanic driver, and he loses on a humbug!
never been too many of the above and it never drove anyone away. is hockey in trouble too? nope.
Sound marketing would dictate that such a rule would not hinder his going to Victory Lane.
they have a merketing department you know. its a complex web. you like all the rocknroll they play on tv and at the track now? they have montoya front and center now - exactly what is needed to boost certain demographics! stroke of genius... well, uh, they wouldn't do that on purpose, uh forgot what i said.
take a marketing class with your logic class.
Richard Petty won his 200th race with an oversized engine! The victory stayed in place and only a fine was given as punishment!
excellent, now you are relegated to random thoughts.
Don't get holier than thou when it comes to NASCAR being UN-even when it comes to punishment.
The book on NASCAR inconsistancy is thicker than your head!
but not thicker than JPM's!
JPM is an INTERNATIONAL racing superstar. NASCAR was lucky to have him land in their laps and now due to a rule they could easily make non-existant with a one hundred buck piece of electronics, they sacrefice an historical win.
HE HAD LITTLE CHANCE OF WINNING. WATCH THE RACES CLOSER! 48 HAD HIM EASILY COVERED.
This is good business?
Just the fact that people are debating this issue, makes it bad for the sanction.
MAKE IT GOOD
Controversy can be good for any sport, but when NASCAR constantly has to rule on issues that they can easily take care of by implementing INTELLEGENCE, they madden their fanbase.
AND SO THEY TUNE IN FOR MORE TO VALIDATE THEIR LIVES WITH, INCLUDING YOU.
I ask again... This is good business?
ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT
Maybe for you.
NOPE, I AM IN I.T. doesn't matter to me. my company doesn;t sponsor a car. but if i worked for target, i'd be smiling right now! that car will get more air time from the non-win than it would from a win! see who gets more time next week - jpm or jimmie!
I'm tire of this issue because it should have been fixed a long time ago. I think the pit road speeding rule is about as useful as a hemmorroid, and in the case of Earnhardt-Ganassi Racing about as painful.
personal problems it seems
The team with the best car and best driver on that day got gyped because a SAFETY rule that they should not have to worry about, overruled all the hard work put into a dominant racecar.
actually the 48 DID win the race. bets car DID winfor a change. 42 got jipped from a 2nd place finish, i agree - jipped by jpm.
That is not racing.
actually, it is. pit road is a big part of every Cup race
Anybody who thinks it is, needs to work for NASCAR. Make sure to send in your resume' if they
have fun watching MM win Pocono!
<quoted text>
P.S.
You really ned to calm down or you will blow a vein.

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#43 Jul 28, 2009
MarkL5 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a SAFETY rule... PERIOD.
Like the HANS device, like the restraint net, like a firesuit. Putting in rev limiters would promote safety. This becomes a competition issue when speed limits on pit road determine the outcome of races.
BTW... The rule was put in place to to save the lives of drivers, but of pit crew members and NASCAR officials. So what NASCAR is telling you is that the drivers are responsible for their safety MORE than the sanction is.
One would think, that NASCAR would be more PRO-ACTIVE and mandate a device that would take the safety of others aside from the drivers into consideration and mandate rev limiters.
To make it EVEN MORE SIMPLE for you, it would be like NASCAR's requirement to have catch fences up at every track they run. The Catch fence does not allow a stock car to land in your lap on Sunday, and the rev limiter makes sure that you get hit at 55mph, thus increasing a crew member's survival in the case of being hit.
Still don't get it yet, huh?
Because NASCAR levies penalties on a SAFETY issue, they skew the competition side of the ledger. If ONE patron spends money on a ticket and their favorite driver loses on a call that has nothing really to do with competition, the sanction is likely to lose that patron.
That is bad business.
And once again I'm guarenteeing that NASCAR lost fans on Sunday, especially when it came to JP Montoya, their one-man diversity program. JP Montoya winning is good for the sport and I don't care what the excuse, NASCAR needs Montoya winning races.
There were thousands of empty seats at Indy on Sunday. This does not help the situation.
NASCAR must decide what this issue is - is it a competition rule or a safety rule? If it is a safety rule then mandate a safety device that insures that drivers do the right limit and fall into the 21st century with the rest of the racing world, instead of looking like the gang that could'nt shoot straight.
This is embarassing.
Listen again, just in case you missed it. There are gear rules in place that limit the RPMs a car turns.

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#44 Jul 28, 2009
MarkL5 wrote:
Mikey, I'm STILL awaiting your answer on my basic comment.
Is this a SAFTY issue or is it a COMPETITION issue?
You cannot effectively address this until you rule on why the rule exists and if you do that, then you must then accept that rules to racers alone cannot effectively address safety in a hazardous work environment.
If that was the case then every driver would not have a mandated HANS device around his neck. NASCAR mandates the device for drivers, but does not mandate a rev-limiter on a SAFETY issue.
My only point here is the inconsistancy of the sanction when it comes to its rulings.
CONSISTANCY.
CONSISTANCY.
CONSISTANCY.
COMMON SENSE.
A safety issue took a victory away from a competitor. An issue that should require more of a mandate than a driver trying to win a race.
Why is this eluding you?
The rev-limiter is the same thing as the HANS. When you eleminate the safety threat, you also eliminate the possibility of the race's integrity.
Its a win-win, instead of the crap that we are left with.
Just a question. Prior to making your argument about this did you look up the engine rules for Nascar? I mean I'm just trying to figure out how you missed it.

Or maybe it's because I'm reading a book about the physics of nascar and she just finished discussing it.

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#45 Jul 28, 2009
Ski wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry stuttering mike, But I have to agree with MarkL5. If NASCAR mandates a pit speed limit for safety reasons then they should not leave it up to the driver to ensure he maintains it.
I for one may very well avoid watching future NASCAR races after this weekend.
So reading up on Mark's assertion I don't get it. You can still drive a car outside of the RPM designated by the limiter if you're in the wrong gear.

"Due to their electrical nature, however, it is still possible to drive an engine beyond the maximum RPM level set by the limiter. This most commonly occurs in the case of selecting the incorrect gear with a manual transmission - for example, selecting second gear instead of fourth after shifting out of third. The speed of the vehicle and the drive wheels may drive the engine far beyond its intended range in this situation, likely resulting in rapid engine wear, and in extreme cases possible outright engine failure."

Isn't that pretty much the same as they do now when they over rev the engine? So you could speed on pit road if you're in the wrong gear.

This makes no sense. If we're discussing limiting RPMs we should only be discussing maximum RPMs turned at top speeds. The drivers should be responsible for managing that. Why? Because it's simple to do. Don't push the limit and you won't have a problem.

And trust me, they'll find a way around the rev limiter. They are smart like that.

So when you look to make safety changes you have to think about that. Can they get around it? Is it cost effective? Will it accomplish the desired results?

There's a whole slew of things that have to be addressed when changing the design of an engine for safety reasons, not just that it's more safe.
mike also stutters

Framingham, MA

#46 Jul 28, 2009
the questioon does not deserve attention.

the rule existed prior to the race, for all 43 drivers. 1 driver couldn't handle it. if he could handle his car there would be no issue. maybe he needs to report a day early for tach adherence practice.

whether you like a rule or its parameters or how it is applied is irrelevant. the rule exists. this is not fantasyland.

a safety issue didn;t take anything from jpm. his non-adherence to a known rule did the trick.
MarkL5 wrote:
Mikey, I'm STILL awaiting your answer on my basic comment.
Is this a SAFTY issue or is it a COMPETITION issue?
You cannot effectively address this until you rule on why the rule exists and if you do that, then you must then accept that rules to racers alone cannot effectively address safety in a hazardous work environment.
If that was the case then every driver would not have a mandated HANS device around his neck. NASCAR mandates the device for drivers, but does not mandate a rev-limiter on a SAFETY issue.
My only point here is the inconsistancy of the sanction when it comes to its rulings.
CONSISTANCY.
CONSISTANCY.
CONSISTANCY.
COMMON SENSE.
A safety issue took a victory away from a competitor. An issue that should require more of a mandate than a driver trying to win a race.
Why is this eluding you?
The rev-limiter is the same thing as the HANS. When you eleminate the safety threat, you also eliminate the possibility of the race's integrity.
Its a win-win, instead of the crap that we are left with.
mike also stutters

Framingham, MA

#47 Jul 28, 2009
so far you have added 'has been''will be''woulda shoulda coulda''setup excuses' and '2nd place'

the race was sunday. he was outside the top ten. i think he was the tenth loser. until they race this sunday - he IS the tenth loser. end of story.

whatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
lol - pretty biased in your ASSEsment I must say.
1. "JMP Blew it!": How do you know if his timing system wasn't calibrated properly - he said he had green lights - hmmmmmm?=)
2. "A real driver would have been able to move hp from 12th to at least 5th": Watch NASCAR much? JPM's car was setup to run in the front and not in the pack. Remember - JPM was blowing away the field all day - no adjustments had been made to run midpack.=P
3. "Doesn't this guy have an incredible racing resume'?": Why yes he does. I believe it was last year at the brickyard that Montoya was running down Stewart - he placed 2nd.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Montoya will get a win at the Brickyard as dominant as he's been there and will get his win - which will be a "redemption win for the ages.
Did I mention he will be the ONLY driver to have won the Indy 500 AND the brickyard? More people will watch the upcoming Brickyard races in anticipation to see if Montoya can pull it off and he will win thousands of NASCAR's fans respect at his driving abilities.
Unfortunately for you, it is JPM that will go down in history as one of racings BEST race car drivers while you live out your bitter pathetic little life.
mike also stutters

Framingham, MA

#48 Jul 28, 2009
you'll both tune in, be serious here!

by the way you logical infants, i have never said the rule made sense. it does not matter. the rule existed, logano handled it. 42 drivers handled it. 1 didn't. no excuses. no one robbed him of anything. tough luck.

anyway johnson had him covered. why all worked up about 2nd place???

Ski wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry stuttering mike, But I have to agree with MarkL5. If NASCAR mandates a pit speed limit for safety reasons then they should not leave it up to the driver to ensure he maintains it.
I for one may very well avoid watching future NASCAR races after this weekend.
mike also stutters

Framingham, MA

#49 Jul 28, 2009
too late
Ski wrote:
<quoted text>
P.S.
You really ned to calm down or you will blow a vein.

Ski

“Is It Friday Yet?????”

Since: May 07

Smalltown New York

#50 Jul 28, 2009
mike also stutters wrote:
you'll both tune in, be serious here!
by the way you logical infants, i have never said the rule made sense. it does not matter. the rule existed, logano handled it. 42 drivers handled it. 1 didn't. no excuses. no one robbed him of anything. tough luck.
anyway johnson had him covered. why all worked up about 2nd place???
<quoted text>
Sorry stuttering mike...I am move fan of an open wheel than I am of NASCAR. NASCAR has become WWE on wheels.
I won't tune in....I promise.
whatashame

Atlanta, GA

#51 Jul 28, 2009
mike also stutters wrote:
you'll both tune in, be serious here!
by the way you logical infants, i have never said the rule made sense. it does not matter. the rule existed, logano handled it. 42 drivers handled it. 1 didn't. no excuses. no one robbed him of anything. tough luck.
anyway johnson had him covered. why all worked up about 2nd place???
<quoted text>
Johnson had him covered? Explain - it looked like Juan was running away with the show with Martin 5 seconds back.
mike also stutters

Framingham, MA

#52 Jul 28, 2009
you need to actually pay attention. put down the beer and watch what the screen has to offer. when they show the pretty cars go round and round don't fixate on the leader, see the other pretty cars too.

and, oh my, there IS ticker. shows intervals, speeds sometimes.

last green flag run, which ended with 88 blowing - JUST AFTER KNUCKLEHEAD WAS SPEEDING ON PIT ROAD - had the 42 4+ seconds up on the 5 car. just before the baffling screw up it had moved past 5 seconds.

meanwhile, here is the important part, 48 had gone from 11 seconds back to 7 seconds back. he was closing in on second and beating jpm every lap as well.

the 88 blow up would have likely put the 48 in row 2 on the restart if dimwit hadn't sped (i am givign the 42 benefit of the doubt that he would have held the lead when pitting. probably would NOT have.

either way, 48 would have blown jpm away.

whatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnson had him covered? Explain - it looked like Juan was running away with the show with Martin 5 seconds back.
mike also stutters

Framingham, MA

#53 Jul 28, 2009
yes i realize that it was likely the long run where he had the big advantage.

but come crunch time, come on. the only reason martin kept it close is his massive amount of talent. jpm would have maybe been second, if not third. no way he would have beaten 5 and 48.
whatashame

Atlanta, GA

#54 Jul 28, 2009
mike also stutters wrote:
yes i realize that it was likely the long run where he had the big advantage.
but come crunch time, come on. the only reason martin kept it close is his massive amount of talent. jpm would have maybe been second, if not third. no way he would have beaten 5 and 48.
Ahhhhh, I see......

Jimmy Johnson & Mark Martin just decided to sit back and let Juan dust them the whole race and then the last 30 laps or so - they where going to run down Juan - who had the highest speed that day "205".

That may be what you HOPED would have happened but everyone saw what I saw up until the last 35 laps - Montoya was dominating the rest of the field.

Don't forget - in 2007, Montoya was running down Smoke with a crappy Dodge. Montoya was doing at that track what he does best there which is leave the field. He did the same thing when he won the Indy 500.

I'm absolutely confident that Montoya will get his win at the Brickyard and I'm looking forward to watching the upcoming Talladega race.

Watch Montoya pull away from the field then slow down to let jr. lead a lap. Immediately after Juan let's jr. lead - Juan proceeds to pass him in one lap and retake the lead.

Since: Apr 07

United States

#55 Jul 28, 2009
14_Patti_18 wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm they have gear rules to limit RPMs on cars. So are we talking about redundant technology??
Gear ratios differ. You can elect to a taller gear up thru the ratio. For instance, a taller first gear is used on road courses, thus the reason why so many drivers stall at Infineon in first. Drivers universally look at their tach, to measure speed on pit road.

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#56 Jul 28, 2009
whatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh, I see......
Jimmy Johnson & Mark Martin just decided to sit back and let Juan dust them the whole race and then the last 30 laps or so - they where going to run down Juan - who had the highest speed that day "205".
That may be what you HOPED would have happened but everyone saw what I saw up until the last 35 laps - Montoya was dominating the rest of the field.
Don't forget - in 2007, Montoya was running down Smoke with a crappy Dodge. Montoya was doing at that track what he does best there which is leave the field. He did the same thing when he won the Indy 500.
I'm absolutely confident that Montoya will get his win at the Brickyard and I'm looking forward to watching the upcoming Talladega race.
Watch Montoya pull away from the field then slow down to let jr. lead a lap. Immediately after Juan let's jr. lead - Juan proceeds to pass him in one lap and retake the lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =d1I6q9BEiIkXX
Hate to rain on your parade, but Jimmie has a habit of holding back until it matters, then he comes on like a freight train. Mark is calculated like that also. Some people don't consider that racing, but if you use your car up in the beginning then it's not there at the end.

Frankly it sounds like a lot of JPM lovers ticked off their driver didn't win because he made a MISTAKE! He'll learn and he'll win eventually. Stop making excuses and recognize that he's a human being and is fallible. I knew he wouldn't close the deal. And you know why? He got complacent. He knew he had a good car and instead of staying smart and being super careful he got careless and it lost him the race. Pity. Maybe next time he won't lose focus.

“BOO!!! Ya'll!”

Since: Apr 07

Las Cruces, NM

#57 Jul 28, 2009
Nascartoon wrote:
<quoted text>Yea, but your given a 5mph cushion, so Nascar tends to not be very forgiving when you exceed that cushion by any margin.
Exactly, let's be honest here! Montoya violated the speed by 5.06 mph and again by 5.11 mph! All computerized!
whatashame

Atlanta, GA

#58 Jul 28, 2009
14_Patti_18 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to rain on your parade, but Jimmie has a habit of holding back until it matters, then he comes on like a freight train. Mark is calculated like that also. Some people don't consider that racing, but if you use your car up in the beginning then it's not there at the end.
Frankly it sounds like a lot of JPM lovers ticked off their driver didn't win because he made a MISTAKE! He'll learn and he'll win eventually. Stop making excuses and recognize that he's a human being and is fallible. I knew he wouldn't close the deal. And you know why? He got complacent. He knew he had a good car and instead of staying smart and being super careful he got careless and it lost him the race. Pity. Maybe next time he won't lose focus.
Who's ticked off? I enjoy poking holes in your silly theories.

How about this one. Mark & Jimmy have a habit of holding back till later, how do you explain Smoke? Smoke doesn't hold back from what I've seen of him this year. And as far as Smoke is concerned - Juan was running down Smoke in 2007 in a crappy Dodge. Juan was doing at that track what he knows best - leaving the field.

Pretty convenient for you to lay all the blame on Juan for the speeding penalty and not even consider that his car's calibration was off.

Juan will be in NASCAR for quite some time, he'll get his Brickyard win and place the trophy next to his Indy 500 trophy. He will be the only driver to have accomplished that feat.

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#59 Jul 28, 2009
whatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's ticked off? I enjoy poking holes in your silly theories.
How about this one. Mark & Jimmy have a habit of holding back till later, how do you explain Smoke? Smoke doesn't hold back from what I've seen of him this year. And as far as Smoke is concerned - Juan was running down Smoke in 2007 in a crappy Dodge. Juan was doing at that track what he knows best - leaving the field.
Pretty convenient for you to lay all the blame on Juan for the speeding penalty and not even consider that his car's calibration was off.
Juan will be in NASCAR for quite some time, he'll get his Brickyard win and place the trophy next to his Indy 500 trophy. He will be the only driver to have accomplished that feat.
Who's to blame if the calibration is off?

Frankly, it's the driver driving the car so he could have played it safe and driven 55 and not 60.

But you're right, the calibration could have been off. We're only talking about 58 RPM. That can't be judged on the tac or on a speedometer either.

It's not an exact science, but these penalties are always the driver's fault. No matter who gets them. Tony's been snagged when he was leading a race. Do you see us complaining about him getting jipped by Nascar. Now we realize that it was a mistake.

Now what does last year have to do with anything. Because I don't see JPM in a Chevy running Tony down.....(at any track). If he wasn't out front he couldn't beat them.

You can pretend that last year at Infineon actually mattered, but you're comparing JPM to Tony like JPM has done half as much as Tony has. JPM may have a win in the Indy 500, but does he have as many championships as Tony has across every series he's run full time in???

So I looked it up for you. No championships for JPM in anything he's ever run.

Tony...At least five including the IRL championship.

Did I miss something?????

See this is where I start playing the numbers game, because the numbers are all that matter. So when JPM has the record Tony has across every series he's run in, come talk to me about how JPM had a better car in ONE race in 2007 than Tony did. LOL!! You're a joke.

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#60 Jul 28, 2009
whatashame wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's ticked off? I enjoy poking holes in your silly theories.
How about this one. Mark & Jimmy have a habit of holding back till later, how do you explain Smoke? Smoke doesn't hold back from what I've seen of him this year. And as far as Smoke is concerned - Juan was running down Smoke in 2007 in a crappy Dodge. Juan was doing at that track what he knows best - leaving the field.
Pretty convenient for you to lay all the blame on Juan for the speeding penalty and not even consider that his car's calibration was off.
Juan will be in NASCAR for quite some time, he'll get his Brickyard win and place the trophy next to his Indy 500 trophy. He will be the only driver to have accomplished that feat.
Ohh and Tony's going to do so much more than win a race at Indy in two different series. See he's already in a prestigious group of guys who has won as an owner/driver, and well I'm hopeful like you and we'll see one of the only owner/driver champions out there at the end of the year.

So again, what's winning two races when you can't win championships??

“Smoke Fan Forever!!!”

Since: Sep 07

Look to the Western Sky!!!!

#61 Jul 28, 2009
mrbreeze wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, let's be honest here! Montoya violated the speed by 5.06 mph and again by 5.11 mph! All computerized!
You might be interested in this:

http://stockcarscience.com/blog/

I know that the conspiracy theorists won't be because this involves real science, but you might enjoy it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Deac McCaskill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Retired NASCAR champion Jeff Gordon to drive in... Dec '16 Allspeed 2
News NASCAR issues new limits for Cup drivers in Xfi... Oct '16 Redneck 3
News Tempers flare in NASCAR (Sep '16) Sep '16 MrTinkertrain24 3
News New look, new rules for Kentucky Speedway NASCA... (Jul '16) Jul '16 MrTinkertrain24 1
News Carl Edwards nudges to NASCAR victory (Apr '16) Apr '16 Rich K 2
News Joe Gibbs Racing looks to stay hot, end Daytona... (Feb '16) Feb '16 Fart news 4
News Four-time NASCAR Cup Series champion changed st... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Fart news 2
More from around the web