2016 NASCAR Discussion ThreadNASCAR 

  • Thread starter Thread starter MustangRyan
  • 10,093 comments
  • 434,867 views
So let me get this straight- If the can was not engaged, that would have been legal, but since the can was engaged, it's illegal? Shouldn't both either be legal or illegal instead of one being legal and one being illegal? I get the safety interest, but that's a dumb rule.
 
In fairness to NASCAR, if the rules are as one of the commentators explained (I haven't worked out who's who by voice alone yet) and that you do nothing else at all when the fuel can's engaged, that was a clear breach of the rules. It was JGR's mistake.

AnthonyD1993
So let me get this straight- If the can was not engaged, that would have been legal, but since the can was engaged, it's illegal? Shouldn't both either be legal or illegal instead of one being legal and one being illegal? I get the safety interest, but that's a dumb rule.
Click to expand...

If the can's engaged, fuel is flowing. If it isn't, it's not. Banning the refueler from doing anything whilst fuel is flowing makes absolute sense to me.
 
Northstar
That's NASCAR's specialty.
Click to expand...
The France family must be proud of watching Brian turn Bill Sr.'s creation into a joke with all the stupidity he implements. For every one thing he somehow manages to do right, he then turns around and creates 5 stupid things that are wrong and terrible ideas.
 
Roo
If the can's engaged, fuel is flowing. If it isn't, it's not. Banning the refueler from doing anything whilst fuel is flowing makes absolute sense to me.
Click to expand...

The point that I'm trying to say is that while the letter of the rule is the rule (and one that does make sense in practice), it's a poorly written one. In my opinion, if the rules state that the fueler can only refuel the car, they should not be able to do anything before fueling it, either.
 
AnthonyD1993
So let me get this straight- If the can was not engaged, that would have been legal, but since the can was engaged, it's illegal? Shouldn't both either be legal or illegal instead of one being legal and one being illegal? I get the safety interest, but that's a dumb rule.
Click to expand...

Toyota paid off NASCAR to win a championship! Am I right, bros?
 
AnthonyD1993
The point that I'm trying to say is that while the letter of the rule is the rule (and one that does make sense in practice), it's a poorly written one. In my opinion, if the rules state that the fueler can only refuel the car, they should not be able to do anything before fueling it, either.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on how the rule is written as I don't know the exact wording, but I agree it would clear up a lot of ambiguity if the refueler was only allowed to refuel the car and nothing else.
 

Latest Posts

Back