Re: Once again a bogus combination
Kenny, how many times have you been beat by one of the new mustangs or challengers year to date?
|
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Quote:
Some people forget that this racing thing is about people. For many of us it is also about visiting with our friends and enjoying a good day of competition. It kinda sours the deal when you have to compete with cars that everyone on this earth knows makes 150 horsepower more than your car. Also, I don't think anyone should be so arrogant as to tell us to stay home if we don't like the cards we have been dealt. It takes away from the purpose of this site to issue such proclamations.Todate we have no say in this horsepower issue but that may change in the future. |
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Quote:
|
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Never in eliminations, once in Class. Right now anyone that runs AA or A have the best chance at running these new combo's. Even then the chances are slim. Dave Ficacci lost heads to a DP in the fourth rd at Charlotte, but I do not know of anyone else losing in the eliminator to a new combo.
Dgal, Give me some time, I can spin numbers with the best of them. Tomorrow I will show some numbers and lets see how you can turn them around. Some racers and none racers are hell bent in seeing NHRA fail, I'm not. |
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Bruce great point, we should all be flooding NHRA with letters about the new cars HP rating not beating the snot out of each other on this site. If the new cars continue to be rated as they are I would (if I had an AA or A/SA) request the original factor on my car to make for a closer playing field. I know of an older AA/SA car that was aproved and then hit 10 HP before it even ran, now that is nonsense. But arguing amoung ourselves and not writing massive letters/emails to NHRA will go no where. Until it changes my biological clock is running and I am going racing.
|
Re: Once again a bogus combination
This whole deal is about money. It's about NHRA being for sale. It's about John Force having 4 Mustang Funny car teams without which NHRA would not survive. It's about selling out people who have been supporting the organization for 25 to 30 years. It's about NHRA getting Ford cars and trucks for the management and staff for free. It's about lining the pockets of top management and board members.
Any of you who think these cars are rated fairly are either in denial or just plain ignorant. And by the way don't tell me I don't race. 2008, 5 Nationals, 2 Sports Nationals, 7 points races and 3 National Opens, plus any combo races I could get to. |
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Greg,
I never said you do not race, and do not see anyone else saying it either. You choose to support your division and local races, I can respect that. As far as the money is concerned. Not sure what world you live in, but life is about money. GM has being doing what Ford is doing now with NHRA for years. The bottom line is selling cars and what ever market share Ford can gain, it will go after. Ford loses no money on there drag racing program, in fact they make money. GM needs to follow this business model and jump in the game. No one is in denial with the hp numbers. If you could not tell, I'm trying to bring some humor into this thread. Greg, life is very unfair. I have family members that have worked in companies for over 25 years, when they went bankrupt, there pensions were gone. What happen to their support. This is racing, a hobby for most. Asking NHRA to change is fine, but we are members not share holders. We do not have to race with them, why do you think you have the right to change NHRA? because you are a supporter. Should I be able to go to McDonalds and tell then I don't like the golden archers. I have been eating your burgers for over 25 years and you must change those archers. I respect that you want a fair playing field, but its not going to happen. You are all worked up about the new combo's. At the present time you have very little chance of running one of them. You have a bad *** car, and I have never seen you loose a heads up race. Can you just try to enjoy racing instead of dwelling on the negative day after day? Gosh, if I spent so much time with all the of the negatives in life, I would shoot myself. Enjoy man, enjoy !!!! |
Re: Once again a bogus combination
I'm just glad to be here.Also glad to do the things i do. I'm in no ways as fast as anyone in my class. I would like to be ,but it ain't gonna happen. So i'll just keep on waiting for that ***** whooping and lick my wounds and wait for the next race i can go to.I learned a long time ago this is for fun . And we do need NHRA & IHRA as long as they can hang around.It's hard to swallow that the old days are indeed long gone but not forgotten.Have FUN guys and gals. Good Luck to everyone.
|
Re: Once again a bogus combination
Quote:
By the way, when a company files bankruptcy it doesn't mean that the pension evaporates. Pensions are covered by the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) since 1974. The current maximum benefit guarantee is $4,500 per month for a 65 year old straight life annuity ($4,050 for a joint life and 50% survivor annuity) if certain conditions are met. If it is a 401k, then the assets are separate and held in trust. Only the participants that hold company stock in their 401k are sunk to the amount in the company stock which has limitations. |
Re: Once again a bogus combination
I did not know I was dealing with a lawyer. Lighten up Dgal, I was just trying to inject a little humor into a thread that's has none.
Thanks for your advice, but I was trying to make a point. And for the record, the companies I am talking about went bankrupt and out of business in the 40's and 50's not 1974. Gees, your way to serious. Do you always just deal in facts, or is fun not an option. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.