Apr 262013
 

We’d been hearing rumors of penalties stemming from Kansas and everyone expected them to be announced Tuesday.  Since penalties usually have some scientific component, I was sort of hoping for some new material.  Tuesday came and went.  Nothing.  Wednesday, all heck broke loose as penalties were announced for the No 20 JGR car (engine issues) and the No 98 ThorSport truck.

The JGR issue isn’t that complicated — or interesting.  Someone screwed up and connecting rod that was too light got into an engine.  It’s beyond surprising that Toyota said that they don’t have the personnel to check all the engine parts – given that everyone knows that penalties for engine violations are huge, why would you risk something like this happening?  The penalty was pretty severe and NASCAR has to crack down.  I get taking away points, leveling fines and such — but the tradition of holding the crew chief responsible for the engine when the engine comes from a supplier who doesn’t let the team touch it is out-of-touch with the realities of NASCAR today.  That was a valid punishment when everything came from the team, but there is no reason Jason  Ratliff should be suspended over an issue that was entirely JGR.  I have no problems with the other penalties, but that one is pretty unfair in my opinion.

The more interesting — and less discussed — penalty is the ThorSport/Johnny Sauter one.  (It was a tough week for Wisconsin drivers).  The team was docked 25 points, which is pretty huge for the Truck Series and the crew chief fined $10,000.  (I realize that seems small when compared to the Sprint Cup Series penalties, but the Truck Series has correspondingly lower purses and salaries.)  Here’s the official NASCAR statement.

“The No. 98 truck was found to have violated Sections 12-1 (actions detrimental to stock car racing); 12-4K (if in the judgment of NASCAR Officials, race equipment that has been previously verified or previously approved and/or sealed by NASCAR for use in an event, pursuant to sub-section 8-6 and/or 8-12, has been altered, modified, repaired, or changed in any manner); 20B-16 (once a fuel cell or fuel cell components have been certified, modifications of any kind will not be permitted to the fuel cell or fuel cell components); and 20B-16.1B (standard black, safety foam with minimum free-standing height of eight (8) inches, acceptable to NASCAR Officials, and used as provided by an approved fuel cell manufacturer, must be used: Fuel cell safety foam modification.”

A fuel cell is slightly different than a fuel tank.  A fuel tank is pretty much an empty container, which leaves open the possibility of raging fires and/or explosions.  Fuel cells, which provide additional levels of safety, became standard after the death of Fireball Roberts from burns received during a car fire at Charlotte in 1964.

Engines_FuelCell_FuelSafeAs shown below, a fuel cell is a metal can (minimum thickness of 18 gage, which is 0.047″) fitted with a flexible bladder shaped to fit the can.  The bladder contains the fuel, but it’s not just a bag of fuel in a metal case.

The most important part of the fuel cell is the item labeled ’1′ in the picture above – the safety foam baffling.  In the picture below, the black thing on the left is the bladder and the yellow stuff is the foam.  The foam is a cross between a nerf ball and the white styrofoam you use to make models of the solar system in elementary school.  That is to say that the foam is sort of coarse, like the white styrofoam, but it’s not rigid – it gives a little when you squish it.  It’s also gasoline resistant.

http://i2.wp.com/www.fuelsafe.com/store/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/R/B/RB215_1_1.jpg?resize=410%2C274

Foam is mostly air.  There are even special foams called aerogels, in which 99 percent of the volume of the foam is air.  (Those foams are fragile and would be destroyed by gasoline.)  The foam takes up a small volume of the fuel cell, so it doesn’t change the capacity of the fuel cell by very much; however, it plays two very important roles.

The function most people know is that the foam keeps fuel from sloshing around in the turns.  A full tank of fuel weights about  120 pounds.  When a car corners, everything that isn’t rigidly attached to the wheels feels a force to the right.  The grip you have depends on how much weight is pushing down on each tire.  When weight shifts to the right side of the car, you lose grip on the left side tires.  There’s only so much you can do to keep the body from rolling in the turns – you don’t need the gasoline moving to the right as well.

More importantly, the foam prevents explosions.   If you tossed a match into a container of gasoline (warning: do not attempt this at  or anywhere else), the explosion would happen before the match actually hit the gasoline.  When you have a cup of water, it looks like there is water in the bottom and air on top.  In reality, there are water molecules from the liquid escaping into the air (and water molecules from the air condensing back into the liquid) all the time.  When you microwave that water until it boils, you force more molecules from the liquid phase into the gas phase.  The hotter the water is, the more water molecules in the air immediately above the liquid water.

In order to smell something, the molecules from the thing you’re smelling have to make their way into your nose.  You don’t smell liquids – the molecules from the liquid vaporize and make their way into your nose.

Slide1Gasoline is volatile.  In fact, any liquid that you can smell is volatile, which simply means that the molecules can very easily move from liquid to vapor.  If you look at a traditional fuel tank that is only partially full, it isn’t a layer of gasoline and a layer of air.  It’s a layer of gasoline and a layer of gasoline vapor mixed with air.

When gasoline is purposely combusted in an engine, it has to be sprayed as a very fine mist.  The finer the mist, the more efficiently it combusts.  The top layer in the fuel tank – the gasoline vapor – is highly flammable.  A spark will combust the fuel vapor molecules nearest to it.  That combustion compresses the rest of the fuel vapor, leading to a chain reaction and an eventual explosion.

Foam in a fuel cell prevents a concentration of the fuel vapor plus air mixture, which significantly reduces the probability that the fuel cell will explode in case of a fire. Reducing the amount of foam in a fuel cell, either by not putting it in to the eight-inch mandated height, or by carving out hollows in the interior of the foam, creates a very highly flammable pocket of fuel vapor and a major safety hazard.

While manipulating the foam might give you an advantage in terms of being able to fit more fuel into the tank, it creates a major, major safety hazard by making the fuel cell more likely to explode in case of an accident.  While people talk about messing with the fuel being a major no-no, the big thing here is really the safety aspects.

 

Mar 112013
 

A short note on Denny Hamlin’s comments on the Gen-6 car and subsequent fine.

I’ve talked to a lot of the people in the trenches involved in designing and creating the Gen-6 car.  That includes people from manufacturers and teams.  All of them have said that the development of the Gen-6 car is a major sea change for NASCAR.  This is the most collaborative that NASCAR has been with introducing a new car in some time.  Manufacturers and teams were consulted and they all feel that their opinions mattered and were taken into consideration.   This was a very, very different process than the COT introduction, which was designed by NASCAR and plans delivered to teams.

So when a driver talks trash about the Gen-6 car, they aren’t just talking trash about NASCAR – they’re insulting the people on their own team and their manufacturer, all of whom have been working collaboratively to make the best car possible.   NASCAR deserves some major accolades for opening up the process.  One team principal even declared it “a new business model where we are partners with NASCAR”.

Is the car perfect?

Heck, no.

But when did you ever do something and get it perfect the first time out?  I’ve said already that we’re going to have revisions throughout the year as we learn more about the car.  No one expected it would come out and be exactly right the first couple of weeks.

If drivers want to help with the tweaking, then they need to make constructive specific comments (like where and under what conditions they’re having problems passing) rather than blanket condemnation of the car and the process.

Having said that, I also disagree with NASCAR fining Hamlin.   I can see their point of view.  Changing corporate culture is a very, very hard thing to do.  NASCAR met the teams more than halfway.  They did a lot of the things people behind the scenes have been asking them to do for some time.   And then a driver comes out and slams the car in the most general, broad way possible.

I suspect it’s like parents who tell their kid he can come in a 9pm instead of 8pm and then the kid stays out till 10 pm.  For heavens’ sake — they were trying to do something nice and they got slapped in the face.  NASCAR is rightfully aggravated.

But I think most fans listened to his comments and thought the same thing as one caller to SiriusXM Speedway, who said

“Of course he’s complaining about the car.  He lost!”

We know drivers are frustrated when they get out of the car and often for some time afterward.  We know they say things that are not always tactful and are sometimes rather wrong-headed.  You don’t have to fine a driver to let us know that you think he or she was out of line.   Hamlin’s fine shifted the focus from racing to public relations.  And that’s not why most of us watch.

Mar 062013
 

As we head for Las Vegas this weekend, I thought I’d repost on of my most popular posts from stockcarscience.com on 3/5/2008  since the redirects for the old stockcarscience.com site don’t work reliably.  The post is about Carl Edwards’ 2008 win at Las Vegas when the team was subsequently fined for having their oil tank cover lid askew at the end of the race.  I have edited the post extensively, adding some new information and better graphics.

Danny LaDue asks: Can you explain the location of a NASCAR oil tank reservoir and how the lack of one could improve aerodynamics?

Thanks for the question, Danny.

NPR got this one wrong.  Frank DeFord in his usual Wednesday commentary made a comment that was essentially — look, the lid was still in the car, it didn’t give him a weight advantage, so NASCAR was wrong to penalize the team.  Don’t these folks known anything?

That’s the problem with aerodynamics — you can’t see it happening.

Unlike your car, the oil in a NASCAR car isn’t stored in the engine (called a wet sump system).  NASCAR uses a dry sump system, in which oil is

stored in an oil  reservoir. The oil reservoir is located behind the driver’s seat and is surrounded on the sides and top by sheet metal, which forms the oil tank.   The sheet metal minimizes heat radiating into the car, traps fumes from the hot oil, and serves as an additional firewall.  This function is so important that NASCAR doesn’t allow the top of the tank to be attached using quick connect fasteners. Some teams duct tape the lid on. The picture to the right shows the location of the oil tank with respect to the chassis. It doesn’t show the cover, which would sit on top of the tank.  The oil reservoir itself is closed and pressurized.

So if the oil tank cover plays such an important role, why would you leave it loose, much less leave it off?   The answer is aerodynamics.  The air exerts forces on the car in different directions.   Drag is the force air creates along the length of the car.  Air creates drag when it hits the front of the car,  but it also creates drag when it gets inside the car because there is no way for it to get out.   Drag always acts opposite the direction the car is trying to move, so you want to eliminate as much drag as possible.

Downforce and lift are the names for the forces pushing straight down or up on the car. Downforce pushes the tires harder into the track and provide grip, while lift pulls up on the car.  These two forces are in direct opposition to each other.  The bigger force wins.  You want to maximize downforce and minimize lift.

Downforce_oilTank1The oil tank is open to the bottom of the car. Air under the car creates lift.  Even though you try to keep the splitter close to the ground, there is always some air that gets under the car.  If the oil tank lid isn’t firmly tightened down, it creates a path for air to get out of the car, which reduces lift.

When the amount of lift decreases because of the loose oil tank cover, then the net downforce is larger because there is less air pushing upward. More downforce translates directly into more speed, as shown in the figure below.  Remember learning about ‘net force’ in physics?  Yep – it is actually useful.  The loose oil tank cover likely provided a little extra downforce — in a sport where races are won by thousandths of seconds, even “a little” advantage is important.

Downforce_oilTank2

One of Rusty Wallace’s cars originally penalized in the Nationwide series won its appeal on the basis that all of the bolts on the oil tank cover were engaged fully and the design of the oil reservoir was such that it led to the apparent opening. I can imagine (especially having seen graduate students overtighten bolts) that if you screwed down really hard on the bolts and the oil tank lid were on the thin side, you might be able to warp the cover on the oil tank lid a little and get some air escape.  The problem with this argument is that you can only use a ‘bad design’ argument once because NASCAR will make you redesign it.

The case of the No. 99 car’s oil reservoir lid is a little different, though, because the reports have been that the lid was entirely missing. In fords, the oil tank cover is held on by a single bolt.  Carl Edwards said on NASCAR This Week that a “bolt backed out”.  Jack Roush made the argument that the vibrations in the car caused vibration harmonics that caused the bolt to unscrew itself.  Even if that’s true (and I have to admit I’m a little skeptical about it), should you really have a safety feature held in place by a single bolt?

NASCAR fined the driver and the owner 100 points (old points scheme!), fined crew chief Bob Osborne (B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Penn State) $100,000, 100 points and suspended him for six weeks.

Mar 032013
 

A running roundup of some of the tech-related motorsports stories.  I’ll add them as I find them.

Gen-6 Car

Safety-Related

My post on why motorsports research takes so long, including a great flowchart on the scientific method.

A number of reports reports that the focus of the Daytona investigation is the catchfence gate (umm… a surprise?).   There are a bunch more, but they all report on the same press conference and have mostly the same information.

When does sports become news?

 

 

Feb 202013
 

Note – this was revised 2/20/13 because new information became available.  It is amazing how hard it is to get a straight answer to things sometimes!

Did Danica Patrick win the Daytona 500 pole because she has a weight advantage?

Chuck Tolsma asked via Facebook:

Evidently weight is added for lighter drivers. How is it distributed in the car? Did Danica win the pole because she has a weight advantage? What is the effect of weight on downforce and is it really as significant as alleged by a couple of media people?

Minimum Weight Rule

Let’s start with the facts: NASCAR requires all cars meet a minimum weight requirement. (Car weight is measured with all the fluids and a full tank of fuel. The way the rule is phrased in the NASCAR rulebook is sort of confusing because they specify the minimum car weight without driver, but then the minimum car weight changes depending on the weight of the driver. So if the driver is 180 lbs and above, the car must weigh at least 3300 lbs. If the driver is 170-179 pounds, the car must weight at least 3310 lbs. The list keeps going, in increments of 10 pounds, all the way down to 140-149 lbs.

From That’s Racin’, the NASCAR rulebook says:

DRIVER WEIGHT MINIMUM OVERALL CAR WEIGHT
180 lbs. – Above 3,300 lbs.
170 lbs. – 179 lbs. 3,310 lbs.
160 lbs. – 169 lbs. 3,320 lbs.
150 lbs. – 159 lbs. 3,330 lbs.
1400 lbs. – 149 lbs. 3,340 lbs.

@bobpockrass clarified this rule earlier today on twitter:  The max ballast anyone is allowed to put on their car, regardless of weight, is 40 lbs.

Drivers are weighed with all their gear on — helmet, firesuit, gloves, sunglasses, sharpies… This can add another 15-20 lbs of weight to a driver.  So although Danica weighs about 100 lbs, with her gear, we’re actually talking 115-120 lbs.  Same goes for the other drivers as well.

This would imply that Danica’s car is 3340 lbs.  Add in her and her gear and the total weight is 3340+120 = 3460 lbs, which is 20 lbs below the 3480 lb absolute minimum weight that any other drivers could get down to.

Why doesn’t NASCAR do things the way many other series do?  Just weight the driver and the car together and it has to meet a minimum weight.  My guess is that NASCAR drivers spend so much time doing publicity for their sponsors and fans that it would be tough to schedule.  This way, you only need the driver once (or twice) a year.

The question that remains (now that we actually have a reliable answer to the weight question) is:  Does that 20 lbs make a difference?

Weight Distribution

Total weight is not as important as where the weight is located.  NASCAR has a bunch of rules on where ballast (additional weight used to bring the car to minimum weight) can be located.  They also mandate a right-side weight of (I believe) 1,620 lbs minimum.

Why does NASCAR mandate how much weight is on the different sides of the car? Because weight distribution determines mechanical grip. The mechanical downforce on each tire — the grip — depends on much weight is pushing down on that tire. More weight on the tire means more grip.

When you turn left, the body leans from the left side of the car to the right side of the car. So when you turn left, you decrease the force pushing down on the left wheels and thus you lose grip (i.e. mechanical downforce) on the left side of the car.

How much weight shifts depends on the center of gravity of the car. The higher up the weight is, the higher the center of gravity of the car becomes. The higher the center of gravity of the car, the more weight shifts when you turn. Think about taking a corner in an SUV with a high center of gravity vs. a sports car with a low center of gravity. The higher center of gravity makes the car lean more in the turn.

For these two reasons, anytime you have a choice where to put weight, you choose left and low. Left because you want to keep as much grip on those left tires while turning and low because it decreases the center of gravity. The center of gravity is why teams have been making carbon fiber dashboards – it decreases weight relatively high in the car and allows them to compensate by putting the weight where it will decrease the center of gravity.

It’s pretty straightforward to compare the CG of a car given the driver weight, the ballast weight and the car weight. So my friend Josh Browne (one of Elliott Sadler’s former crew chiefs and now a Ph.D. student at Columbia) and I plugged some numbers to see if this made much of a difference.  I went through a bunch of possible scenarios this morning once I got confirmation on the weight.

Based on these estimates — which don’t take into account a lot of other factors — if their put the entire 40 pounds on the left hand side, Danica’s car might have a lower CG by maybe a tenth of an inch — or two.  That’s simply not enough advantage to matter, especially since you have (as pointed out by @keselowski) other factors.  The one Brad pointed out was that the car height is measured with the driver in the car – a lighter driver doesn’t bring the car down as much.  I’m still trying to find how much lattitude teams have with rear springs at Daytona to figure out whether the set up could compensate for that.

Regardless, remember that the center of gravity and the overall weight is one of a bunch of factors, all of which could be a plus or a minus.

The calculations also explain why you don’t keep letting them add ballast — at some point, you get too big of an advantage if the ballast amount gets large enough and that more than overcomes having the weights equal.  Weight distribution is way, way more important than total weight.

But Wait! Don’t Women Have a Lower CG than Men?

Yeah. About an inch lower. Even taking that into account, the numbers don’t change much. The advantage she’d have is in the noise because you have so many other variables, like seat weights and placements, dashboard weight, etc. that could change. Women have a lower of center of gravity because (in general) we have wider hips and narrower waists, whereas men are more uniform.

Remember — we’re talking about 3300 pounds+ of car and 100-200 lbs of driver and ballast.  The driver and ballast is such a small part of the center of gravity, that you’d have a really hard time significantly manipulating the CG that way.

Conclusion

In talking to engineers on race teams, I’ve heard the same thing over and over: she won because Hendrik gave her good equipment and the fastest engine. They had nothing to lose. Being on the pole at Daytona doesn’t mean very much in terms of winning the race, but look at the huge publicity boost. It was on the nightly network news. How often do we get on the mainstream news for anything other than crashes and fights?

The folks in the garage are pretty quick to raise a ruckus if they think something sneaky or unfair is going on.  Have you heard scores of drivers complaining about the 10 having an unfair advantage?  If none of them think there’s anything suspicious about Danica’s pole, why do we?

Want to know stuff about the Gen-6 Car? Tweet your questions to @drdiandra or find me on facebook. I’ll find the answers for you.  And hopefully they won’t be as hard to figure out as this one was!

Other Relevant Posts

Gen 6 Car

Superspeedway Science

Buy my book! The Physics of NASCAR

Jan 252013
 

I love the Gen-6 car.  Not as much as I love the Nationwide cars (but that’s got more to do with what I drive than it does the cars).  The big question is whether the decrease in cautions is going to be changed because of the new car.Let’s start (as we usually do) with the new car.

Graph4Let’s start (as we usually do here) with the data.  I’ve tabulated the data for cautions for the last twelve seasons and found that cautions have been decreasing since 2005, as shown,  for both the Nationwide and the Sprint Cup series.

In order to compare the two series and to compare between seasons within a single series, I’ve plotted the number of cautions per 100 miles.

In 2012, the Sprint Cup series had 1.57377 cautions per 100 miles.  They drove 13725 miles total, so that was 216 cautions total.

In 2012, the Nationwide series had 2.23969 cautions per 100 miles.  They drove 8240 miles, with comes out to 189 cautions — essentially the same number of cautions per mile they had last year.

Conclusion #1.  If the Nationwide drivers had driven the same number of miles as the Sprint Cup drivers, they would have had 307 cautions.

You’ll notice that I’ve drawn lines through each set of data.  They aren’t just a best fit by eye – I actually did a non-linear least-squares fit that determines the line that goes closest to all the points.  The data are decidedly linear and, more importantly, there aren’t any bumps or jump in, say, 2008, when the COT (which I guess is now the Gen-5 car) was introduced, or in 2011 when the Nationwide car was changed.  The data remained pretty consistent.

Conclusion #2.  Cautions are not affected much by the car that’s being driven.  Sure, I expect there to be some driver errors when a car doesn’t handle the way the driver expects it to behave; however, these guys catch on really quickly, so that’s going to be maybe 5 cautions.  Five out of 216 is like 2.3 percent, which is well within the error in the fit parameters.

Why are the cautions decreasing?  I’ve gone into this before, but I believe it is essentially because the drivers have a lot more experience now than they did in previous years.  There are a lot of veteran drivers in the Cup series right now, and I calculated that if you add up all the races run by the current crop of drivers, they have run a total of about 1000 more races in 2011 than they did in 2005.  That’s a whole lot of experience, and it’s distributed amongst the drivers.   Compare just two drivers:  Tony Stewart had run 248 races in  2005 and at the end of 2012, had run 500.  Carl Edwards had only run 49 races in 2005 – compare that to the 301 races he’d run as of today.  (I am only counting points paying races.  If you could somehow quantify the number of practice laps, time testing, etc., I think that would only make my argument stronger.)

So, in short, I don’t expect there will be any significant change in cautions because of the new car — up or down.  What do you think?

 

Nov 212012
 

At the start of the season, the big news was that cautions were remarkably down from last year.  As I showed, this isn’t a new trend – it’s a continuing trend since 2007.  Since the season’s data are now complete, I thought it was time to revisit the data.

Plotted at right are the caution data from 2012 compared to the data from the previous six years.  I’ve normalized the cautions to cautions per 100 miles to account for the changing lengths of some races over the years.

Note how the data jump around pretty wildly until about race 10.  That is because averages are only meaningful when you’re averaging enough information.  When you average a small number of measurements, the average fluctuates until you get enough data that the numbers mean something.  You can’t predict anything from the first five or ten races.  Please remember that next year when the prognosticators tell you someone’s season is over just after first Martinsville.

The 2012 data are the green triangles – a whopping decrease in cautions from 2011!  In absolute numbers, there were a total of 218 cautions this year compared with 278 in 2011 and 265 in 2010.  Where were the biggest numbers of cautions?

Highest Lowest
Race Month Cautions/100 miles Race Month Cautions/100 miles
Bristol August 4.87  Fontana  March  0.388
Martinsville October 4.18  Texas  April  0.400
Martinsville April 2.58  KansasHomestead  AprilNovember  0.750

The Nationwide Series didn’t experience the same drop in cautions – in fact, they had just about the same numbers of cautions this year as they did last year.  The tracks with the largest caution rates per 100 miles for Nationwide are:

Highest Lowest
Race Month Cautions
/100 miles
Race Month Cautions/100 miles
Bristol August 6.77  Fontana  March 1.33
Phoenix November 4.90  Iowa  September  1.37
Kansas OCtober 3.88  Dover  September  1.50

Here’s the updated graph, showing cautions per 100 miles since 2001.  You’ll notice that 2012 marks a new low for the Cup Series.

I’m still working on the analysis, but I think my original theory holds for why the number of cautions has been decreasing:  we simply have more drivers with more experience.  There are a lot of veterans and fewer rookies.  The average time each driver has been driving in the series is higher, which means that the drivers are simply better.

Sep 042012
 

I don’t know if they still make you do flowcharts in programming class, but I was trying to read through the Chase scenarios and I was getting really confused.  So I did this.  I think it’s much clearer now.  To me, at least.

OK – I’ve amused myself with this so much that I’ll put it up in progress.  I think it’s right, but I’ll check tonight.  I bet I can get the other scenarios on here… Watch this space!

9/5/12:  I’m pretty sure what I’ve got to this point is right.  It’s not pretty yet, but this is turning out to be harder than I expected!   If Tony Stewart would just stay in 10th place, all our lives would be much easier.

You will have to click on the image in order to be able to see it…

 

 

Jul 262012
 

Some clarifications in response to some very confused statements over the past few days.

1.  Amphetamine is a particular molecule: It isn’t a category.  Stimulant is the category.  Amphetamine has nine carbon atoms, 13 hydrogen atoms and a nitrogen atom that are arranged in a very specific way.  There aren’t ‘types’ of amphetamine.  Here’s its picture.  If the atoms are different, or the positions are different, it’s not amphetamine.

There are, however, different products that contain amphetamine.  Adderall contains amphetamine and some other stuff.  Dexadrine contains amphetamine and some other stuff.  Over-the-counter products legally cannot contain amphetamine.

What Tara Ragan, AJ Allmendinger’s business manager, said on SiriusXM Speedway Thursday afternoon what that they hadn’t been told the substance.  I think she’s confusing the drug and the product in which the drug could have been.   The toxicology testing cannot tell you where the drug came from, only that the drug is there.

2a.  “nanograms” is not the appropriate unit to use in discussing toxicology tests.  The unit, as I described in detail, is nanograms per milliliter of fluid.  If the allowed limit is 250 ng/mL, then you would find 250 ng in one mL, 500 ng in 2 mL, 750 ng in 3 mL, etc.  A number in nanograms is meaningless without reference to the volume of fluid being tested.  If you don’t understand what you’re talking about, find someone who does or don’t talk about it.

2b.  Again, on SiriusXM Speedway, Ragan said that her comment on ‘nanograms over’ was made without knowing what the NASCAR limit is for amphetamine.  First, I’m incredulous that the testing information would be presented without the threshold.  Second, I’m incredulous that AJ’s camp would have made that important a statement based on a guess.  She cited a figure of 1000 ng/mL,  As I mentioned above, the federal guidelines are 250 ng/nL, which is four times smaller than the figure she used.  The DOT limit is 500 ng/mL.  “A few nanograms” means totally different things depending on the cutoff.

3.  It doesn’t matter how much he’s over – if he’s at all over, he’s guilty.  It doesn’t matter in terms of the rule.  Yes – you’re over, you’re guilty.  It does matter in terms of public perception.  If you hear that someone was picked up for drunk driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.09 or with a BAC of .22, most of us think two different things.  Most of us can conceive of misjudging having one drink more than we should have – but getting a BAC of .22 means you are totally, out-of-the-park plastered and I don’t think most of us could conceive of getting behind the wheel under those conditions.

4.  “I’m not a (doctor, toxicology, pharmacist, chemist) and I don’t understand everything”.  Perfectly fair.  Then find someone who does understand it and get them to explain it.

I suspect everyone in AJ’s camp is wandering around in that daze you get when something terrible happens.  When someone dies or your spouse leaves you, everything becomes confusing.  Angie Skinner suggested that they should get a crisis management specialist.  I think that’s the right idea because you need someone who is not emotionally caught up in the situation.

ADDED:   A couple people asked whether there is really no way to tell where the amphetamine came from.  Here’s the long answer:  The test only tells you that the molecule was there, but not where it comes from.  Caveat:  Adderall has a specific combination of amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, etc.  If you do the analysis and find that ALL the components of that prescription drug or other substance are there, that’s a pretty clear suggestion that it came from a particular drug that has a well-characterized composition.

The only analogy I’ve been able to think of is imagine that you were examining the contents of  dead person’s stomach because they had a peanut allergy and died.  You look in the stomach and you find peanuts.  There’s no way to tell where the peanuts came from if that’s all you found.  However, let’s say you find bread and jelly, too.  Then you can conclude that the person ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  But with only the peanuts and not the bread and jelly, you can’t say.  Let me know if that’s not clear.

Jul 252012
 

As a nanomaterials research, I usually love seeing the word ‘nano’ in the news, but not in reference to finding out that AJ Allmendinger’s ‘B’ sample tested positive “within nanograms”.  I would have been very surprised if the B sample had come out any different than the A sample – a testing lab would not have gone public if they weren’t 99.99% positive their results were correct.  AJ has a lot of respect from people in the business who know him well.  We don’t know the specifics and shouldn’t speculate, but we can agree that, whatever the truth, it’s a very sad situation for everyone involved and the sport in general.

I’ve covered a number of issues about drug testing in general and answered some of your questions in previous posts.  I’ll reiterate that the limits at which a drug test is considered ‘positive’ are determined to take into account possible measurement limits of the equipment.  I wanted to address the statement by AJ’s manager specifically.

“This was not the news we wanted to hear and we will work to get to the source of what may have caused this. To that end, we have secured the services of an independent lab to conduct thorough testing on every product within AJ’s home and motor coach to find what might collaborate with his test, which created results that were within nanograms of accepted standards. We are working closely with NASCAR and Penske Racing to identify the next action steps in this process.”  (via The Daly Planet)

“Nano” is a metric prefix meaning “a billionth”.  A nanogram is one billionth of a gram.  A gram of sugar is about 1/4 teaspoon.  To understand a nanogram, go pour out a 1/4 teaspoon of sugar on a piece of waxed paper.

Divide the sugar into ten parts.  Each part is a decigram, or one-tenth of a gram.

Throw away nine parts and divide the tenth part into ten more parts.  Each part is a centigram or one-hundredth of a gram.

Throw away nine parts and divide the tenth part into ten more parts.  Each part is a milligram, or one-thousandth of a gram.

Do that six more times and one pile will be a nanogram.  We’re talking about really, really small quantities.

The problem is that “nanograms” is the wrong unit to use when talking about drug tests.  The quantity we’re interested in is nanograms per milliliter or ng/mL.  The limit for initial testing for amphetamine in federal drug testing is 500 ng/mL.  A secondary screen is considered to be positive if it exceeds 250 ng/mL.  We do not know whether NASCAR uses the federal guidelines or if they have stricter limits (which would be completely within their right to have), but at least the federal limit gives us an order of magnitude with which to compare.

Assuming the statement about the test being “nanograms over” actually means “nanograms per mL over”, let’s assume it was over by 5 ng/mL. If you assume the lower federal limit of 250 ng/mL, you’re talking about being over by 2%. That’s a very different situation that if the limit was 5 ng/mL and you were “a few nanograms” over because then you’re over by 20-100%.

When your science teachers annoyed you because you didn’t include the units in your answer, they weren’t doing it to be annoying.  This is exactly the situation they were trying to help you avoid.  The information provided is meaningless without knowing what the limit is and the correct units.  I realize that AJ’s people are probably reeling from this, but if you’re trying to explain how close the test was, you can’t do it with the information they provided.

If you were 2% over for a blood alcohol level of 0.08, your BAC would be 0.0816. Is your driving significantly more impaired at 0.o79 than 0.08?  Probably not, but that is the nature of having to define a line.  Drug testing is much like the requirements on the car that are tested during inspection.  There is a hard line and if you’re over, you’re over.  The lines are somewhat arbitrary, but they are well defined and known in advance.

Despite what many fans seem to think, it’s not our ‘right’ to know the specifics, but Allmendinger is in a no-win situation.  As I stated before, he almost has to disclose exactly what he tested positive for, what the limit was and what he tested if he is to redeem himself in the eyes of the fans.  Otherwise, he will be dogged by speculation that is probably a lot worse than the facts.

Right now, the Allmendinger camp is likely getting all the products they can find and having them tested to try to correlate the exact molecule found with the tests; however, given the lack of quality control of supplements (see this really well-written article by David Newton) and the fact that he may have been taking supplements from a bottle that he finished off and threw away, there is a low probability that he is going to be able to clear himself completely.