|
|
Post by Macgor on Jul 19, 2024 10:59:16 GMT 12
Breaking a rule does not necessarily imply cheating. To my mind, if there was an intent to break a rule then that can be called cheating, but if there is no intent, just carelessness or ignorance, then thats not cheating. SNZ have very clearly outlined which rules were broken, but they have not alleged cheating. The offences were all quite obscure and technical. It's not as if they used an eight cylinder when only a six cylinder is allowed! Team Osborne clearly trusted their engine builder to provide them with a compliant motor. The motor they used was not compliant, and the final responsibility for that rests with them, so they are the rule breakers. But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating. So please explain the rule they have been pulled up on for the rocker gear?... even the average crew member in Saloons knows that roller rockers are illegal.... it's blatant cheating, and trying to insinuate that Osborne and his engine builder are purely on a business level... don't think so. I think your bias is showing just a tad too much, can't recall you making so much fuss about other rule breakers in the past. The whole topic is simple, the rules were deemed to have been broken and punishment administered . We have all been made aware of what happened . Can't see the point of further comment let alone arguing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 19, 2024 11:23:15 GMT 12
I do think they knew more about the cheating than what people are letting on.. after all they were the ones behind pushing towards a crate engine.. i doubt someone with no knowledge of engines would be jumping to try push such a change and i really doubt the engine builder would have had anything to do with a crate engine when they arent aloud to touch it..
As per the reference to the qoute from the old facebook post
“haters will hate and mention the word cheating and others will copy it.”
|
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 19, 2024 11:35:20 GMT 12
I do think they knew more about the cheating than what people are letting on.. after all they were the ones behind pushing towards a crate engine.. i doubt someone with no knowledge of engines would be jumping to try push such a change and i really doubt the engine builder would have had anything to do with a crate engine when they arent aloud to touch it.. As per the reference to the qoute from the old facebook post “haters will hate and mention the word cheating and others will copy it.” 100% agree , any form of sport cheaters are exposed , and to say im bias ... how so.... there's only 2 pulled up for cheating , one still under appeal and the other has had appeal denied, hence the one in conversation. IMHO it should be exposed for exactly what it is , I'm not saying anything nasty towards anyone.... just pure facts via SNZ. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 19, 2024 12:10:09 GMT 12
I do think they knew more about the cheating than what people are letting on.. after all they were the ones behind pushing towards a crate engine.. i doubt someone with no knowledge of engines would be jumping to try push such a change and i really doubt the engine builder would have had anything to do with a crate engine when they arent aloud to touch it.. As per the reference to the qoute from the old facebook post “haters will hate and mention the word cheating and others will copy it.” 100% agree , any form of sport cheaters are exposed , and to say im bias ... how so.... there's only 2 pulled up for cheating , one still under appeal and the other has had appeal denied, hence the one in conversation. IMHO it should be exposed for exactly what it is , I'm not saying anything nasty towards anyone.... just pure facts via SNZ. 🙄 The facts are they were found to be non-compliant. SNZ does not assess cheating (which implies a deliberate approach to non-compliance). Whilst there are only 2 cars found to be non-compliant in the Saloon class, the number of cars being checked to this extent is low. After allocated titles the top 5 are subject to additional scrutineering. I don't think it's been mentioned in this case how many cars were checked in each class but I'll take an educated guess that it's a maximum of 5. |
|
|
|
Post by mod46c on Jul 19, 2024 13:10:06 GMT 12
Where in any of this thread are there any derogatory comments? Keep in mind it's SNZ that lay the FACTS out regarding the cheating, in no way have I not stated anything else. Now that I've mentioned that Osborne should purely be up front with their 8000+ followers , that seems to have upset a few fan boys on here🙄 Maybe some of y'all need to go read the SNZ release again. Breaking a rule does not necessarily imply cheating. To my mind, if there was an intent to break a rule then that can be called cheating, but if there is no intent, just carelessness or ignorance, then thats not cheating. SNZ have very clearly outlined which rules were broken, but they have not alleged cheating. The offences were all quite obscure and technical. It's not as if they used an eight cylinder when only a six cylinder is allowed! Team Osborne clearly trusted their engine builder to provide them with a compliant motor. The motor they used was not compliant, and the final responsibility for that rests with them, so they are the rule breakers. But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating. I suspect its not that black and white more a little grey. It is highly likely the engine builder built what he was asked to do, which it is highly unlikely we will ever know what the was. Personably I think the penalty is a little on the heavy side, removal from result's, return of prize money and your name splashed about (reputation damage) was probably sufficient (where do you go for the next offence should it occur). |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 19, 2024 13:14:18 GMT 12
100% agree , any form of sport cheaters are exposed , and to say im bias ... how so.... there's only 2 pulled up for cheating , one still under appeal and the other has had appeal denied, hence the one in conversation. IMHO it should be exposed for exactly what it is , I'm not saying anything nasty towards anyone.... just pure facts via SNZ. 🙄 The facts are they were found to be non-compliant. SNZ does not assess cheating (which implies a deliberate approach to non-compliance). Whilst there are only 2 cars found to be non-compliant in the Saloon class, the number of cars being checked to this extent is low. After allocated titles the top 5 are subject to additional scrutineering. I don't think it's been mentioned in this case how many cars were checked in each class but I'll take an educated guess that it's a maximum of 5. Snz uses offical wording of compliant and un compliment Cheating is a slang term Every speedway nz title the top 5 or 6 cars are ment to be taken to the sheds as checked over as it has been for a long time, in many classes that involves additional chekcing of cars and the carburettor off and restrictor plates checked.. Roller cockers could have easily been checked by removing the rocker covers at the track on the night and this could never have gone as far as it has as of the past couple years additional seals are now being put on the engines of the top 5 / 6 cars and they will stay on there untill the engine is pulled down to be checked. I think there is a certain time frame this must be checked by. And so i have been led to believe not every engine has been looked into across all the classes |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 19, 2024 13:19:22 GMT 12
Breaking a rule does not necessarily imply cheating. To my mind, if there was an intent to break a rule then that can be called cheating, but if there is no intent, just carelessness or ignorance, then thats not cheating. SNZ have very clearly outlined which rules were broken, but they have not alleged cheating. The offences were all quite obscure and technical. It's not as if they used an eight cylinder when only a six cylinder is allowed! Team Osborne clearly trusted their engine builder to provide them with a compliant motor. The motor they used was not compliant, and the final responsibility for that rests with them, so they are the rule breakers. But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating. I suspect its not that black and white more a little grey. It is highly likely the engine builder built what he was asked to do, which it is highly unlikely we will ever know what the was. Personably I think the penalty is a little on the heavy side, removal from result's, return of prize money and your name splashed about (reputation damage) was probably sufficient (where do you go for the next offence should it occur). There has to be a heavy penalty to detere this kind of behavour and make people aware that they cannot be ignorant to rules and that there will be consequences.. Personally i think the stand down should have not allowed a competitor to attend the following seasons championships As far as prize money goes we need more information in regards to the outcome of this.. as a member of speedway new zealand the sport should not be forking out additional money to the new place getters as well as covering the costs of inspection .. The fine should be every cent of prize money plus tear down costs plus a fine |
|
|
|
Post by tractionavant on Jul 19, 2024 14:39:42 GMT 12
Breaking a rule does not necessarily imply cheating. To my mind, if there was an intent to break a rule then that can be called cheating, but if there is no intent, just carelessness or ignorance, then thats not cheating. SNZ have very clearly outlined which rules were broken, but they have not alleged cheating. The offences were all quite obscure and technical. It's not as if they used an eight cylinder when only a six cylinder is allowed! Team Osborne clearly trusted their engine builder to provide them with a compliant motor. The motor they used was not compliant, and the final responsibility for that rests with them, so they are the rule breakers. But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating. So please explain the rule they have been pulled up on for the rocker gear?... even the average crew member in Saloons knows that roller rockers are illegal.... it's blatant cheating, and trying to insinuate that Osborne and his engine builder are purely on a business level... don't think so. Rule T 11-2-36 (f) allows roller rockers but restricts engine capacity to 4212cc (257 cu in). It's unlikely the Osborne LS Chev was that small in capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by tractionavant on Jul 19, 2024 14:57:00 GMT 12
The 2nz Osbourne car has been found to be uncompliant from the following T11-2-37 Engine Block (a) Option One: OE road car block. Tall deck or raised cam blocks are not permitted. T11-2-36 Engine Capacity & Configuration Restrictions (F) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212cc (257ci). T11-2-34 Engine (d)OE engine can be modified except where prohibited in this Section. T11-2-39 Rockers (a) Rocker Configuration is to be as per OE (i)shaft mounted must remain so, (ii) stud mounted must remain so. T11-2-39 Rockers (c) Roller Rockers not permitted. T11-2-6 BASE ROAD CAR (E) The road car must be a two or four door production saloon or sportscar. It cannot be a convertible, ute, SUV, van, wagon or similar. Not surprised on the body shape ruling as it's always looked like a super saloon racing with saloons Quite a few saloons don't seem to bear any resemblance to the 'base road car' as per the SNZ 'Saloon Data Base' The Osborne saloon is presumably a Chev Corvette but does not seem to be any of the Corvettes (C4, C5, C6, C7) in the data base, but having said that, not many of the saloons racing at the present time do. |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 19, 2024 15:35:03 GMT 12
So please explain the rule they have been pulled up on for the rocker gear?... even the average crew member in Saloons knows that roller rockers are illegal.... it's blatant cheating, and trying to insinuate that Osborne and his engine builder are purely on a business level... don't think so. Rule T 11-2-36 (f) allows roller rockers but restricts engine capacity to 4212cc (257 cu in). It's unlikely the Osborne LS Chev was that small in capacity. Totally agree , & Osborne and his engine builder would have known that... it's very common knowledge in the Saloon grade that they don't run roller rockers. So IMHO that's straight up cheating... no grey area. |
|
|
|
Post by interestedbystander on Jul 19, 2024 17:43:11 GMT 12
quote, But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating.
G'day, I dont know how many motors you've had built, but I can tell you everything is itemized and priced, if there are roller rockers or two hotdogs on a stick in your motor you will be paying for it, and you will know they are there. Its impossible for a guy to build a motor without the input of the owner/bill payer.
|
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 19, 2024 18:11:53 GMT 12
quote, But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating. G'day, I dont know how many motors you've had built, but I can tell you everything is itemized and priced, if there are roller rockers or two hotdogs on a stick in your motor you will be paying for it, and you will know they are there. Its impossible for a guy to build a motor without the input of the owner/bill payer. Exactly right.... common sense right there! |
|
|
|
Post by spuddy on Jul 19, 2024 18:39:49 GMT 12
492c has announced his retirement from speedway
|
|
|
|
Post by keyboardracer on Jul 19, 2024 18:47:51 GMT 12
Breaking a rule does not necessarily imply cheating. To my mind, if there was an intent to break a rule then that can be called cheating, but if there is no intent, just carelessness or ignorance, then thats not cheating. SNZ have very clearly outlined which rules were broken, but they have not alleged cheating. The offences were all quite obscure and technical. It's not as if they used an eight cylinder when only a six cylinder is allowed! Team Osborne clearly trusted their engine builder to provide them with a compliant motor. The motor they used was not compliant, and the final responsibility for that rests with them, so they are the rule breakers. But neither Mark nor Ashton are engine builders, they dont take the engine apart and re-assemble it when it needs repairs or refreshing, they are reliant on their provider's assurance that the motor is legal. Breaking a rule via ignorance is still breaking a rule, but it's not cheating. I suspect its not that black and white more a little grey. It is highly likely the engine builder built what he was asked to do, which it is highly unlikely we will ever know what the was. Personably I think the penalty is a little on the heavy side, removal from result's, return of prize money and your name splashed about (reputation damage) was probably sufficient (where do you go for the next offence should it occur). A little on the heavy side....I'm a fan of this team but I'd in no way try to claim a ban of less than half a season is on the heavy side. The question of where to next if they happen to be caught again is simple, a ban of atleast 5 years would be easily warranted |
|
|
|
Post by wildcatsfan on Jul 19, 2024 19:47:50 GMT 12
492c has announced his retirement from speedway He is selling both his Super Saloon & his Saloon too. I hope that his decision was not made out of sour grapes due to the decision & sanctions imposed by SNZ. The haste at which he has announced his retirement at this time is not a good look. |
|
|
|
Post by spuddy on Jul 19, 2024 20:04:13 GMT 12
492c has announced his retirement from speedway He is selling both his Super Saloon & his Saloon too. I hope that his decision was not made out of sour grapes due to the decision & sanctions imposed by SNZ. The haste at which he has announced his retirement at this time is not a good look. The Saloon class is in a bit of a mess with the different factions that are pro/anti 4 bar chassis. Peter Schouten has always been very passionate about the class, organising the big southern series, and he announced a couple of weeks back after some latest rule change he is done with the class effective immediately |
|
|
|
Post by interestedbystander on Jul 20, 2024 11:27:54 GMT 12
I dont see what all the noise is about anyway, why do you have rules that just complicate shyyte? It seems like someone took the silliest thing to get upset over and stuck it in the rules to boost his or her ego!! You can lose power just as easy as make power with RollerRockers, you can use offset bushes in normal rockers to increase lift or you can add a larger or different shape camshaft. Why make it so difficult all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeboy on Jul 20, 2024 11:53:14 GMT 12
I dont see what all the noise is about anyway, why do you have rules that just complicate shyyte? It seems like someone took the silliest thing to get upset over and stuck it in the rules to boost his or her ego!! You can lose power just as easy as make power with RollerRockers, you can use offset bushes in normal rockers to increase lift or you can add a larger or different shape camshaft. Why make it so difficult all the time. Then why have a saloon class at all? , just let them run methonal and 430 cubic inches , |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 20, 2024 12:14:13 GMT 12
I dont see what all the noise is about anyway, why do you have rules that just complicate shyyte? It seems like someone took the silliest thing to get upset over and stuck it in the rules to boost his or her ego!! You can lose power just as easy as make power with RollerRockers, you can use offset bushes in normal rockers to increase lift or you can add a larger or different shape camshaft. Why make it so difficult all the time. The rule of the factory rocker has been in since its inception when Jumbo started the class , and it certainly wasn't because of his ego. The fact is for all the years of the Saloon class they have made this rule work, why now should it be pushed aside purely because some one cheated with there rocker gear on their engine, shouldn't they just take responsibility instead of trying to justify the rule break?... 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by orapiuwharf on Jul 20, 2024 16:56:18 GMT 12
I believe SNZ really missed out on a fantastic opportunity by not allowing the CT525. In my opinion that would have been the best outcome for the class. SNZ need to look forwards not in the rear view mirror.
|
|
