|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 16, 2007 at
11:17:45 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
10/30/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
498
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: mermaid on July 15 2007 at 12:43:46 PM
I was told (not by an official) that the new ASCS heads that are being manufactured are not within spec and that is what Josh had on his car. Kind of sucks if you bought new equipment including your ASCS heads that you thought were supposed to be correct and that is what got you DQ'ed. I'm not sure if that was the case or not, but if that rumor is true, it really sucks. Josh had a great run last night.
|
That is why they call them RUMORS......
Fenders are like vacuums... they both suck.
|
|
|
|
July 17, 2007 at
03:07:44 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/30/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
569
|
|
|
|
Has it been a year already?
X
|
|
|
|
July 17, 2007 at
07:48:10 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/25/2006
|
|
Posts:
|
251
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: [email protected] on July 16 2007 at 10:51:31 PM
Not saying anyone is cheating here but if the sprint invaders only have so many tools that they can use to check the motors then that doesn't sound to good or fair. Maybe they ought to purchase them or shall I say maybe they should of had them from the start to be fair. Maybe they have them now I dont know, just going by what was said here
|
"Maybe they ought to", "maybe they should have", " Maybe they have", "I don't know"
Sounds like a lot of Guessing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 17, 2007 at
08:09:08 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/16/2006
|
|
Posts:
|
7
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: jrcamp on July 17 2007 at 07:48:10 AM
"Maybe they ought to", "maybe they should have", " Maybe they have", "I don't know"
Sounds like a lot of Guessing
|
You forgot to add that I said I was going by what sprinter2_49 was saying, there were no assumptions.
|
|
|
|
July 17, 2007 at
10:30:34 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
07/05/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
63
|
|
|
|
What do Sprint Invader rules have to do with this it is Knoxville and Invader rules and inspections don't count
|
|
|
|
|
July 18, 2007 at
03:13:53 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
06/07/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
12
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: adl10 on July 17 2007 at 10:30:34 PM
What do Sprint Invader rules have to do with this it is Knoxville and Invader rules and inspections don't count
|
Because Josh's car owner is also the owner for John schultz and the car owner just happens to be president of the Sprint Invaders, or used to be anyway. If you can't have your own cars be legal, how can you expect anyone else to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 18, 2007 at
04:47:59 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/14/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
18
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: BESTFRIEND on July 18 2007 at 03:13:53 PM
Because Josh's car owner is also the owner for John schultz and the car owner just happens to be president of the Sprint Invaders, or used to be anyway. If you can't have your own cars be legal, how can you expect anyone else to?
|
Bart isn't the president of the Sprint Invaders, and hasn't been all year.
|
|
|
|
|
July 18, 2007 at
05:10:14 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
03/05/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
31
|
|
|
|
The problem overall here is this. Running these heads aren't illegal UNTIL you get caught. Once your caught, you are labeled a cheater and should be for a long time. The sad part about the whole cylinder head deal is that unless they police ALL cylinder heads at ALL 360 races that uses the brodix ASCS cylinder head, there will always be guys that run a "little" illegal. I'd be willing to bet that there are more "illegal" cylinder heads out there that any of you run against on any given night. I have heard that one of the guys that machines these heads has claimed to have made over 100 set of these heads. IF that is the case, don't you think that most, if not all of these heads are still in circulation. I've also heard that certain reputable (and non-reputable also) motor builders are putting these heads on. Sprint-car racing has always been "how much do you want to spend to go fast" and as far as I'm concerned, will be that way for quite a while to come. I'm just glad that Knoxville is policing the deal so close, as I believe that is 2 or 3 they have busted in the last year or so. Kudos go out to those guys for sure!
|
|
|
|
|
July 18, 2007 at
10:29:05 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
04/16/2006
|
|
Posts:
|
7
|
|
|
|
Maybe it will get interesting friday night in Jacksonville, but also maybe it should get interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 23, 2007 at
11:57:26 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
03/05/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
31
|
|
|
This message was edited on
July 23, 2007 at
11:58:40 PM by texsprintfan
Put it this way. It is happening more and more out there. If I had to play "blackjack" on this deal, I would definatly bet "21" that more and more of these heads are out there. It just matters how much you want to double down on running them and not getting caught. Any "blackjack" players out there? Is Blackjack legal in Missouri?
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2007 at
12:07:48 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
12/03/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
41
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: texsprintfan on July 23 2007 at 11:57:26 PM
Put it this way. It is happening more and more out there. If I had to play "blackjack" on this deal, I would definatly bet "21" that more and more of these heads are out there. It just matters how much you want to double down on running them and not getting caught. Any "blackjack" players out there? Is Blackjack legal in Missouri?
|
Texsprintfan,
Can you help me out a little,
I'm having trouble reading between the lines. LOL
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2007 at
09:08:22 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
06/17/2006
|
|
Posts:
|
14
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: texsprintfan on July 23 2007 at 11:57:26 PM
Put it this way. It is happening more and more out there. If I had to play "blackjack" on this deal, I would definatly bet "21" that more and more of these heads are out there. It just matters how much you want to double down on running them and not getting caught. Any "blackjack" players out there? Is Blackjack legal in Missouri?
|
Tx- those are some pretty harsh assumptions.... best make sure they are true before making them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2007 at
09:18:55 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
03/05/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
31
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: kvillefan23 on July 24 2007 at 09:08:22 AM
Tx- those are some pretty harsh assumptions.... best make sure they are true before making them....
|
You are correct. Since I wasn't there, I don't know the whole story. I just heard that there were some suspiscious things on the heads last week. Let's hope all is good.
|
|
|
|
|
July 24, 2007 at
06:09:01 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
09/29/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
626
|
|
|
This message was edited on
July 24, 2007 at
06:11:36 PM by Wesmar
I can't believe I have missed this thread until now. Must be because we have been too damn busy freshening everybody's "LEGAL" ASCS headed engines in preparation for next week's 360 Nationals.
Tis a shame what some people will do to gain an unfair advantage over people that build them legally.
See ya'll next week!!!!!!!!!!
P.S. Before you guys go spouting off verbal diarreah I'm just poking some fun, stirring the pot
|
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2007 at
10:44:09 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
06/07/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
12
|
|
|
|
Kudo's to Knoxville Raceway for finally Teching race cars, but it certainly hasn't always been that way. I was in the pits a few years back when "Blackjack" was still racing 360's, it was the last race of the year and Garner lead every lap in the final race of the year in the 360 class, and got passed on the last lap by Brown. Brown won the points in the 360 class that year, Garner got second. After the race, Garner came in and went right to McCoy and wanted Brown checked and wanted his checked for fairness. He didn't have a problem getting beat by Lasoski's Nephew as lond as it was fair. The race track flat refused, because they didn't want to end the year with controversy? (Mc Coy's exact words) There would have been no controversy if he was infact legal, or if the track had teched him at any point through the season? Was he legal or not, we will never know? Why can't race tracks tech the top three every night so there is no doubt? It won't take long, especially if the top three know it is standard practice. Just a thought.
|
|
|
