Skip to content

Scott Miller discusses part repair leading to RFK Racing’s No. 6 team penalty

Scott Miller, NASCAR‘s senior vice president of competition, joined SiriusXM NASCAR Radio‘s The Morning Drive to discuss details of the infraction levied against the No. 6 Roush Fenway Keselowski Racing team of driver-owner Brad Keselowski.

On March 24, an L2-level penalty was given to RFK‘s No. 6 Ford in violation of Sections 14.1 and 14.5 of the NASCAR Rule Book — both headings that relate to the modification of a single-source supplied part for the Next Gen stock car. It resulted in a 100-point hit in the driver and owner standings, a 10-point deduction in playoff points, a four-race suspension for crew chief Matt McCall and a $100,000 fine.

RELATED: Brad Keselowski comments on the penalty

The penalties were upheld following an April 7 appeal hearing by a three-member group from the National Motorsports Appeals Panel. The deadline for RFK Racing to file a final appeal was Tuesday at 5 p.m. ET, but the team elected not to move forward.

With the book now closed, Miller made it a point to be transparent about what was found that led to the substantial consequence, which was a repair to a tail panel that wasn‘t up to code.

“The repair policy is very straightforward,” Miller said Wednesday. “Any repair that‘s done is to bring the part back to the original specification. On this part, that was not adhered to. There are body mounting landings that are part of the rear fascia that weren‘t brought back to the original specifications. That‘s a key design feature of the part. The repair policy was not followed. That‘s really what it comes down to. A critical dimension of the part was altered.”

Miller noted that a strict deterrence model was requested by NASCAR Cup Series drivers and teams during the Next Gen development process.

“As we worked through what the NextGen car was going to be over that long journey with the teams, one of the things was the single-source parts had to be strictly enforced or we‘ll get right back to the place where we were with the other car — of constant development,” Miller said. “A strict deterrence model was asked for by the folks in the garage, and it was our job to do that.”