June 11th, 2010 
Journo I know we’re all getting sick of the Front Row Motorsports penalty discussion, but I wanted to give it one last word.
A lot of the discussion this week has centered around NASCAR penalizing yet another team who can’t afford it. Lest I start a discussion, Carl Long’s name has been brought up. How could NASCAR penalize another team that likely didn’t gain an advantage (or necessarily mean to do it), but still broke a rule? No matter your feelings on the Carl Long situation (and please let’s not start a discussion of it here), I’ll tell you the situation Front Row finds itself in was completely earned.
Team owner Bob Jenkins and team GM Jerry Freeze have been quoted quite extensively defending their team and the team’s actions (before you ask if I was surprised, of course I wasn’t). Freeze says he doesn’t know where the caps came from, and went on to say:
While I certainly can’t disagree with some of the statement, I can tell you where the caps came from. They came from the toolbox of the #38 team (or #34?).
I know it’s hard to conceive a crew chief putting his team in a position like this. And I’m willing to concede this may have even been a mistake, as Freeze and Jenkins have said it was. The fact remains though that someone grabbed those bleeder valves out of the #38′s toolbox (probably the new – that weekend – tire specialist), which means someone put those very illegal bleeder valves in that toolbox.
It may have been a mistake, but the bleeder valves should have never been there in the first place. And forgive me, but I don’t buy the line that the #38 team came across these caps accidentally. I do however understand the politics of the situation.
In the end, this wasn’t a conspiracy, or anything of the like. It was an honest, stupid mistake (whether purposeful or unintentional). The team got caught this time.
I think through this whole thing though Front Row came out in a pretty good position. They’ll have to have one team qualify on time, but their points deficit isn’t necessarily insurmountable (especially with Robby Gordon in a precarious money situation, and the #71 team starting and parking), and thankfully the monetary fine doesn’t look like it’s going to put them out of business.
What the #38 team did was against the rules. They unfortunately deserved the penalty that was sent their way. Still, I’m rooting for this little team that could – I just hope, for their sake (and the sake of the two other teams, and dozens of employees), they can overcome this big setback.
Related posts:
Posted in 
Tags: 
not that I want to start using them, but can someone explain what the offending item actually is.. and how it works?
I thought it was a valve stem that was somehow rigged to release air if the pressure got above a certain level, but the articles keep referring to valve caps with holes in them. But what difference does it make if the cap has a hole in it, I’ve run tires with no caps at all, it would seem that the cap is irrelevant provided the valve stem holds.
Steve: I don’t know exactly what Front Row had, but the caps somehow allowed pressure to slowly bleed off from the tires. They are usually fairly low tech, and they won’t keep the tires at a certain pressure. That’s why the tires went flat. All it would take is something to open the valve in the stem slightly. Tires build pressure over the course of a race run and a bleeder would allow that to not happen.
I have the same confusion as Steve. If it’s as T.C. stated, and required someone to loosen the schrader valve a bit so a cap with small holes allows pressure to bleed, then there is no way this is accidental.
If it’s a more elaborate ruse, such as a cap tht has a manufactured plunger to activate the schrader valve to bleed pressure, then these would be significantly different than a simple valve stem cap, and should be easily recognizable.
Or perhaps it was a specially modified schrader valve to bleed pressure, in which case someone had to make a conscious decision to remove one valve and install another.
I really don’t see how this could have been accidental on multiple tires. One, maybe. This was a blatant attempt to cheat, and I have no sympathy for the team. If anything, I think they got off light.
TC…I think Mad Mike has some great questions about the punishment dolled-out by NASCAR’s boys down in Daytona.
They are in his writings, today, over on laidbackracing.com
http://www.laidbackracing.com/Articles2010/MM51.html
Pretty interesting stuff, comparing RCR’s laser-rims and this latest deal for Jenkins team.
Comments?
TC…let me ask you. I have read that these caps were found on various tires in the FRM 38 team’s arsenal, but not on the 37 or 34. I have also read that the caps were on an inner liner stem.
I keep thinking it is weird to have a bleeder on an inner liner…wouldn’t that be akin to equalizing the pressures?
I am curious, have you ever printed anything along the lines of “We feel that these fines which were handed down by nascar are NOT deserved”?
I have now seen you print several threads saying how you agree with NASCAR, and I am not sure what the point of that is, unless sometimes you print something where you disagree with NASCAR.
I am not suggesting that you start trouble with NASCAR and I am not trying to start trouble with you, I am only pointing that if you always agree with NASCAR then it is just “piling on” and “me tooing”
I am not sure what the point is of telling us that you always agree with NASCAR, of course you agree with them, we all know that it is a bad idea to get crosswise with the boss.
If I missed some articles and you have printed where you disageeed with them, I am curious of the instances.
PS
In my opinion, it is incorrect to compare these tire valves WHICH SOMEONE KNOWINGLY ADDED AT THE TRACK to an engine which Carl Long bought from someone else ( trusting them that the inside measurements would not be off by .00001 of an inch) it is not like they enlarged the piston at the track.
Garry – Am I not allowed to agree with NASCAR on occasion? And if you read the site, you’ll know we criticize NASCAR quite often around here. I wouldn’t call it several either. Of 716 posts I think we’ve commented on two major penalties NASCAR’s handed down – the Carl Long penalty and now this one, and I happened to agree to some extent with both of them (I didn’t say in this one that I agreed with what the penalty was – I don’t remember saying that in the Carl Long situation either – I just said them being penalized was deserved). What really though is the difference between me writing I agree or I disagree? At the end of the day it’s all opinion meant to elicit discussion. Would you rather we don’t do posts to have discussions on things like this? I’m not going to change my opinion on something to placate anyone. If that was the case I wouldn’t have a website. I thought it was worth writing about (and having discussion on), so I wrote it.
I have to wonder though what the purpose of a comment like this is. Is to elicit some negative response from us? If you don’t like what we’re writing, that’s fine, no one’s forcing you to come to the site (we’re certainly not forcing you to comment). In the future I would hope this energy could be spent contributing to the discussion (whether you agree or disagree).
And by the way, I think the Carl Long and Front Row penalties are quite comparable. The fact is they are both situations where the teams in question did things (or may have had things happen to them) that may or may not have helped them on track. They are both small teams who can’t really afford large penalties. Those sound like similar situations to me.
By the way, if you actually want to look to see what penalties we’ve written on, type ‘penalty’ into the search bar. You’ll see all the posts we’ve ever written on penalties (or penalty related matters).
I typed in penalty in the search bar and it said …. “No posts found. Try a different search?”
My question was wether or not you had ever posted an instance where you disagreed with NASCAR, that was all, a simple question. I do not want to ellicit a negative repsonse from anyone, I was just asking.
….and by the way Carl Long bought that engine from someone else, they did not tamper with it ….. Front Row did tamper …they installed those illegal valve themselves, they tampered in order to gain track advantage … and they got NO WHERE NEAR THE DEATH PENALTY carl long did.
===========================
“”In the future I would hope this energy could be spent contributing to the discussion (whether you agree or disagree).”"
I thought that is exaclty what I was doing.
Please dont be so sensitve, I just asked a question.
Garry: By my count typing penalty into the search bar returns 33 posts.
And just to give you a few examples of times we’ve disagreed with NASCAR:
http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2008/09/18/you-call-that-a-penalty/
http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2009/11/01/nascar-steps-in-it-again/
http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2009/09/17/an-open-letter-to-wayne-auton/
http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2009/02/01/final-thoughts-on-truck-series-rule-changes/
http://www.thenascarinsiders.com/2009/08/31/stock-cars-were-not-meant-to-race-in-the-rain/
As is the point of this website, we are going to offer our own opinions on issues. Sometimes we will agree with NASCAR, sometimes we will disagree. If we post one way or the other, we can always be accused of “piling on.” The interesting thing is here, is you don’t often find (especially in the current climate) many folks who will agree with NASCAR. So in essence, we aren’t piling on. We are being unique. All of those people who disagree with NASCAR on an hourly basis are the ones “piling on.” So again, if you aren’t okay with us agreeing with NASCAR, that’s fine. You are entitled to your own opinion. But when you call us out, expect a response.
And in terms of Carl Long, we’ve completely beaten that issue to death here at TNI, and I refuse to say anything further. If you want to know where we stand, look back at the previous posts and comments we wrote on the subject.
its all good men.
Hopefully you can tel from the variety of my posts that I just call it like I see it, and sometimes that may seem like giving you overly enthsiastic postive accolades, and sometimes ….. other things …….. anyway, it is all good.