NASCAR hands Edwards hefty penalties; team considering appeal

By Rea White - Associate Editor

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Article Rating: 4.7
Rate this Article

Barbara Jo Tolman / Special to NASCAR Scene

The two photos with this story show the area of Carl Edwards' infraction as his car sits in the garage at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. In one photo, NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Director John Darby (leaning in car) gestures toward the area as Edwards looks on. The other shows the oil tank reservoir without its cover.

Gordon wins appeal, regains points and crew chief

NASCAR has penalized Roush Fenway Racing's Carl Edwards 100 driver points and levied other sanctions as a result of rule infractions found last Sunday after he won the UAW-Dodge 400 Sprint Cup race at Las Vegas Motor Speedway.

NASCAR has also taken away the 10-point bonus Edwards would receive for the win if he makes this season's Chase For The NASCAR Sprint Cup. Edwards was the Sprint Cup points leader but now drops to seventh in the standings.

The team was found in violation of the rules because the car's oil tank cover was not attached.

As a result, Edwards and car owner Jack Roush have been penalized 100 championship driver and 100 championship owner points, respectively. In the event the team qualifies for the Chase, it will not receive the 10 bonus points used for determining the Chase seeding order. Crew chief Bob Osborne has been fined $100,000, suspended from the next six NASCAR Sprint Cup Series events, suspended from NASCAR until April 30 and placed on probation until Dec. 31.

“The bolt holding the lid in place failed in its purpose as a result of vibration harmonics generated by the car and the race track during the race,” Roush Fenway Racing President Geoff Smith said in a statement. “The bolt was secure enough to survive 225 miles of practice, perhaps up to 399 of 400 miles of the race and the scrutiny of numerous inspections. It’s a tough business for any race team to have to pledge $100,000, 100 points and a six-race crew chief suspension as an indemnity payment to NASCAR against a promise forced from us by NASCAR that no bolt will ever fail its purpose under race conditions.

“We are currently evaluating whether or not the circumstances justify submitting to the unpleasantness of the appeal process, but from a competitive standpoint, we believe it is in our best interest to have Bob Osborne begin serving the penalty now.”

Chief engineer Chris Andrews will fill in for Osborne on Friday and Saturday at Atlanta Motor Speedway and general manager Robbie Reiser will join Andrews on the pit box Sunday.

Latest Headlines

“We are confident that we have the depth of talent in our organization and the strength in Carl Edwards and  the No. 99 team to overcome this penalty, should that end up being the final outcome of this unhappy episode,” Smith said.

NASCAR has had a series of penalties for car of tomorrow infractions, each of which cost the driver 100 points and led to a suspension of the crew chief.

Average Rating: 4.7

Comments

40 responses to "NASCAR hands Edwards hefty penalties; team considering appeal"
  1. 1
    Bill Maier said:
    Mar 5, 2008 at 4:52 PM

    NASCAR is bound and determined to get the Hendrick cars to the head of the pack. This statement from the article is just pie in the sky, and only found in the perfect world of NASCAR " that no bolt will ever fail its purpose under race conditions."

    Report as Abuse
  2. 2
    Bill Maier said:
    Mar 5, 2008 at 4:52 PM

    NASCAR is bound and determined to get the Hendrick cars to the head of the pack. This statement from the article is just pie in the sky, and only found in the perfect world of NASCAR " that no bolt will ever fail its purpose under race conditions."

    Report as Abuse
  3. 3
    Melissa Lovelace said:
    Mar 5, 2008 at 5:08 PM

    I like Carl Edwards, but come on! You can honestly believe that the oil cooler lid not being attached was an accident. The bolts they use wouldn't back off that easily. Besides NASCAR isn't trying to "get the Hendrick cars to the head of the pack." If they were, then the officials would have taken the win away and given it to the proper winner -- in this case, Dale Jr.

    Report as Abuse
  4. 4
    kevin sona said:
    Mar 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

    nascar seems to hate ford as long as you dont have a blue ovel you will get your hand slaped last year robby gordon got fined every other week now he's in a dodge and the fine gets overturned for a unaproved nose now thats a big deal. oil cap comes off??????????????????????????

    Report as Abuse
  5. 5
    kevin sona said:
    Mar 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM

    nascar seems to hate ford as long as you dont have a blue ovel you will get your hand slaped last year robby gordon got fined every other week now he's in a dodge and the fine gets overturned for a unaproved nose now thats a big deal. oil cap comes off??????????????????????????

    Report as Abuse
  6. 6
    Jacqueline Johnson said:
    Mar 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM

    Thank you Bill, Im glad Im not the only one who has realized the favoritism shown to HMS. Parts failures do happen, it isn't impossible. Unlike certain other Crew Chiefs, Bob Osborne (in his four years as a C.C.) does NOT have a history of cheating (only one other incident following the Dover Chase race that sure as hell couldn't have been called an advantage). As for the rightful winner, it IS carl Edwards, even an avid Dale Jr fan (my brother) knows that.

    Report as Abuse
  7. 7
    Les Paris said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 6:54 AM

    It seems to me that with all of the technology available to NASCAR, that it would be fairly easy to determine if the bolt showed evidence of loosening due to vibration. Having some experience in this area, microscopic inspection of the bolt will tell the tale. I doubt that Bob Osborne would intentionally allow such an obvious infraction occor.

    Report as Abuse
  8. 8
    Les Paris said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 6:54 AM

    It seems to me that with all of the technology available to NASCAR, that it would be fairly easy to determine if the bolt showed evidence of loosening due to vibration. Having some experience in this area, microscopic inspection of the bolt will tell the tale. I doubt that Bob Osborne would intentionally allow such an obvious infraction occor.

    Report as Abuse
  9. 9
    Derek Sleeper said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 8:09 AM

    The interesting part of this (and I am a Carl fan from Missouri) is there are more than one bolt holding the oil tank trunk lid in place (it is a lid – not the oil ‘cap’ that was missing). First, it is basically a trunk – it has four sides and a top to surround the oil tank. The truck sits behind the driver. The trunk is open to the bottom of the car. Air coming from under the car circulates around the oil and because of the lid – creates lift. It has been suggested that the absence of the lift created by the lid, the total down force (TDF = DF – Lift) would be greater – as much as 10% greater – giving Carl an aerodynamic advantage. My two questions before I will believe it was unintentional are: How did ALL of the bolts fail? The lid wasn’t loose, it was gone. Second, as Boris Said asked – why wasn’t the lid inside the car? There was no other damage to the car so it should have just fallen off and remained inside. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Report as Abuse
  10. 10
    Derek Sleeper said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 8:11 AM

    The interesting part of this (and I am a Carl fan from Missouri) is there are more than one bolt holding the oil tank trunk lid in place (it is a lid – not the oil ‘cap’ that was missing). First, it is basically a trunk – it has four sides and a top to surround the oil tank. The trunk sits behind the driver. The trunk is open to the bottom of the car. Air coming from under the car circulates around the oil and because of the lid – creates lift.
    It has been suggested that the absence of the lift created by the lid, the total down force (TDF = DF – Lift) would be greater – as much as 10% greater – giving Carl an aerodynamic advantage.
    My two questions before I will believe it was unintentional are: How did ALL of the bolts fail? The lid wasn’t loose, it was gone.
    Second, as Boris Said asked – why wasn’t the lid inside the car? There was no other damage to the car so it should have just fallen off and remained inside.
    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Report as Abuse
  11. 11
    jim sherman said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM

    i have been following nascar for 50 years and it has always been about general motors.gary(general motors)nelson started it and will never change. any time a ford or dodge starts to show they are doing better nascar shuts them down.

    Report as Abuse
  12. 12
    Jennifer Vancil said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM

    I agree with Derek Sleeper; where was the lid, i dont know if maybe it came off and then shoot out the window or what? but then i guess they would of found in as debris on the track. I dont know its just to complicated for me to see it either way.

    Report as Abuse
  13. 13
    JOHN GOETHE said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 1:24 PM

    if you dance you got to pay the fiddler

    Report as Abuse
  14. 14
    Lacey George said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 1:32 PM

    I am a huge Carl fan. I really believe he had nothing to do with this. I don't think NASCAR is trying to get the Hendrick cars on top either. I think they need to come up with a better system to deal with infractions. How many times has Chad Knaus or Tony Eury Jr been fined for infractions? They pay the fine then do it again and again. Why are the drivers having to suffer a point loss, when I honestly think they know nothing about it.

    Report as Abuse
  15. 15
    Tim Edick said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM

    Question for Bill Maier. Are you an idiot or just showing that much distain for Hendrick's? If memory serves me correct it was two of Hendrick's boys last year that got the first real penalties handed out for the COT. Gordon and Johnson for fender alterations cost them this same money and points. Carl should also lose 5pts for leading a lap. Rules are rules!

    Report as Abuse
  16. 16
    Luann Deal said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM

    Iagree with Sleeper a cheater all the way and His win show not be his or any one who cheat and wins

    Report as Abuse
  17. 17
    Luann Deal said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM

    Iagree with Sleeper a cheater all the way and His win show not be his or any one who cheat and wins

    Report as Abuse
  18. 18
    christopher phillips said:
    Mar 6, 2008 at 11:43 PM

    I like the drama, It's Nascar those things happen,and people pay for them.Was it cheating ,who knows? Roush says bad part we the people,say whatever we want.

    Report as Abuse
  19. 19
    Timothy Schultze said:
    Mar 8, 2008 at 8:15 AM

    Maybe the BOLT did fail so maybe they should use two bolts or whatever but if this happened just because of harmonics whats next i believe it was a fail-er but these people are paid lots of money so it does not happen so suck it up quite whining accept the consequences and move on as roush will THIS NOT A HENDRICK DEAL SO GET OVER IT if you believe it is you must lead a really disturbing and pathetic life MOVE ON.

    Report as Abuse
  20. 20
    barbara archer said:
    Mar 9, 2008 at 9:47 PM

    nascar need new owners ,for the drivers are not treated the same.i think they need to leave nascar.rules are not the same for every one.

    Report as Abuse
  21. 21
    Bill Maier said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    NASCAR is bound and determined to get the Hendrick cars to the head of the pack. This statement from the article is just pie in the sky, and only found in the perfect world of NASCAR " that no bolt will ever fail its purpose under race conditions."

    Report as Abuse
  22. 22
    Bill Maier said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    NASCAR is bound and determined to get the Hendrick cars to the head of the pack. This statement from the article is just pie in the sky, and only found in the perfect world of NASCAR " that no bolt will ever fail its purpose under race conditions."

    Report as Abuse
  23. 23
    Melissa Lovelace said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    I like Carl Edwards, but come on! You can honestly believe that the oil cooler lid not being attached was an accident. The bolts they use wouldn't back off that easily. Besides NASCAR isn't trying to "get the Hendrick cars to the head of the pack." If they were, then the officials would have taken the win away and given it to the proper winner -- in this case, Dale Jr.

    Report as Abuse
  24. 24
    kevin sona said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    nascar seems to hate ford as long as you dont have a blue ovel you will get your hand slaped last year robby gordon got fined every other week now he's in a dodge and the fine gets overturned for a unaproved nose now thats a big deal. oil cap comes off??????????????????????????

    Report as Abuse
  25. 25
    kevin sona said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    nascar seems to hate ford as long as you dont have a blue ovel you will get your hand slaped last year robby gordon got fined every other week now he's in a dodge and the fine gets overturned for a unaproved nose now thats a big deal. oil cap comes off??????????????????????????

    Report as Abuse
  26. 26
    Jacqueline Johnson said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    Thank you Bill, Im glad Im not the only one who has realized the favoritism shown to HMS. Parts failures do happen, it isn't impossible. Unlike certain other Crew Chiefs, Bob Osborne (in his four years as a C.C.) does NOT have a history of cheating (only one other incident following the Dover Chase race that sure as hell couldn't have been called an advantage). As for the rightful winner, it IS carl Edwards, even an avid Dale Jr fan (my brother) knows that.

    Report as Abuse
  27. 27
    Les Paris said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    It seems to me that with all of the technology available to NASCAR, that it would be fairly easy to determine if the bolt showed evidence of loosening due to vibration. Having some experience in this area, microscopic inspection of the bolt will tell the tale. I doubt that Bob Osborne would intentionally allow such an obvious infraction occor.

    Report as Abuse
  28. 28
    Les Paris said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    It seems to me that with all of the technology available to NASCAR, that it would be fairly easy to determine if the bolt showed evidence of loosening due to vibration. Having some experience in this area, microscopic inspection of the bolt will tell the tale. I doubt that Bob Osborne would intentionally allow such an obvious infraction occor.

    Report as Abuse
  29. 29
    Derek Sleeper said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    The interesting part of this (and I am a Carl fan from Missouri) is there are more than one bolt holding the oil tank trunk lid in place (it is a lid – not the oil ‘cap’ that was missing). First, it is basically a trunk – it has four sides and a top to surround the oil tank. The truck sits behind the driver. The trunk is open to the bottom of the car. Air coming from under the car circulates around the oil and because of the lid – creates lift. It has been suggested that the absence of the lift created by the lid, the total down force (TDF = DF – Lift) would be greater – as much as 10% greater – giving Carl an aerodynamic advantage. My two questions before I will believe it was unintentional are: How did ALL of the bolts fail? The lid wasn’t loose, it was gone. Second, as Boris Said asked – why wasn’t the lid inside the car? There was no other damage to the car so it should have just fallen off and remained inside. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Report as Abuse
  30. 30
    Derek Sleeper said:
    Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM

    The interesting part of this (and I am a Carl fan from Missouri) is there are more than one bolt holding the oil tank trunk lid in place (it is a lid – not the oil ‘cap’ that was missing). First, it is basically a trunk – it has four sides and a top to surround the oil tank. The trunk sits behind the driver. The trunk is open to the bottom of the car. Air coming from under the car circulates around the oil and because of the lid – creates lift.
    It has been suggested that the absence of the lift created by the lid, the total down force (TDF = DF – Lift) would be greater – as much as 10% greater – giving Carl an aerodynamic advantage.
    My two questions before I will believe it was unintentional are: How did ALL of the bolts fail? The lid wasn’t loose, it was gone.
    Second, as Boris Said asked – why wasn’t the lid inside the car? There was no other damage to the car so it should have just fallen off and remained inside.
    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Report as Abuse