Re: my opinion
 

I tried to explain American Pie and band camp to Don just now...he's to old to watch such movies.

Re: my opinion
 

What defines a "full-time professional drag racer" versus AMATEUR racer?

Re: my opinion
 

Jeff, I'm not ducking your question. I didn't race with the previous system. I started running ss in 1996.

With the current points system it's fair for everyone! If any racer competes at 6 national events, they have the same number of races to claim as a "touring pro". Because ONCE AGAIN, you claim your best 3 out of 6. No races after your FIRST 6 count towards national points. Same with divisionals. Best 5 out of FIRST 8. So anyone that does well at their points claiming races could be national champion. There is no benefit in points to going to more than the 14 points claiming races. Touring pro or whoever.

Re: my opinion
 

Jeff, I am guessing you are referring to the old "waiver" system, where racers had x-amount of races they could waive, pre-event and post-event? I'm not sure how many waivers a racer had back then (I think the current points structure has been in place since the early 1990's). I think a racer had two pre-event and two post-event waivers. Maybe three. Someone else will have to help me out here.

Re: my opinion
 

Or how about this:
Go to divisional races, earn grade points and enter races when they open up to accept entries?

Re: my opinion
 

That's a great question! Don? Jeff?

Re: my opinion
 

That's a great question! Don? Jeff?

Re: my opinion
 

Since we all say that Stock and Super Stock are performance-based classes, let's bring performance into the points mix. My question is: should the national champions be simply the best bracket racers or the best overall racers, based on building and tuning your car as well?

Award points for the top 32 qualified spots at national and divisional events and award points for rounds won during class eliminations and for records set. This also will entice racers to run hard and the AHFS system will be more effective.

Re: my opinion
 

Evan, that's the FIRST rule change discussed on this thread that made any sense to me. Don and Jeff's ramblings sound like recess in 2nd grade..."I can't win so change the game to suit me!!" How many times do they have to explain it? The best 3 of the FIRST 6. Anyone who can attend 6 nationals has the same playing field as the guy that attends all 24.

Re: my opinion
 

Evan those are some great points on how to help fix the AHFS great suggestion. Now if other people could be more postive about trying to fix it rather than complaining all the time. The only disadvantage to the current points system would be were you live and how many races are close to you. So that solution would to be move.

Re: my opinion
 

Evan that makes too much sense. A lot of people on this forum want to take performance out of these classes. I started racing when we ran off the records and not some arbitrary index number and I liked it. It is supposed to be about performance.

Re: my opinion
 

Hey Ed, Bob deserves it!

Re: my opinion
 

Hey Ed, it does amaze me how NHRA seems to have taken up a "Hands Off" policy towards certain racers.

Re: my opinion
 

I wouldn't have a problem with Bob Shaw winning the championship. Do you? If he is the fastest so be it. Wouldn't be fun not using window art to win? People would still be trying to protect their combos but it may cost them a few wins. The ahfs would start having an effect after all these years.

Re: my opinion
 

OK, Jeff, I will try to explain the new system to you.

Nobody gets to pick and choose which races they claim. You go to a race and it counts towards your quota no matter if you want it to or not. You go to six nationals and you have met your quota. NHRA then takes the best three out of those six and they count towards your total. Same thing with divisionals except it's your best 5 of 8. Bottom line: nobody gets to pick and choose which races they claim. Do you understand this point?

About the old system. I heard that Jim Waldo lost out on a championship one time because he didn't claim a 4th rounder thinking he could do better and didn't. If he would have claimed that race he would have been champ. This is just what somebody told me. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't you think the current system gives the person who doesn't travel across the country the same chance to win a championship as a Touring Pro Sportsman®?


-Toby

Re: my opinion
 

Evan,your post was like the shot heard around the world.Hopefully someone who is someone at NHRA reads this and does his homework to make it a workable system.BUT,
it's all contingent on national tech letting the local tech guys do their job.When they are in doubt there should be KNOWLEDGEABLE tech people to consult immediately for a ruling.No gray areas,just black and white.I hope something like this can be worked out.Thanks for the breath of fresh air Evan.See you next year.

Re: my opinion
 

You can't be serious can you comrade Jeff?

Re: my opinion
 

Ed,

Are you referring to Indy '08, where I was disqualified for a valve that was .006 too big? If so, have some balls and come out and say it, don't beat around the bush. I'm sure you are so perfect in racing and in life and never ever make mistakes. You can call me anytime to discuss the matter further (813-675-3475 office). Do you really think that I would take a chance on failing tech for something as small as that? if so you are a fool. That trip cost me thousands and a week away from work (as it does for anyone who goes to Indy).

Nevertheless, I went over in on this forum and in ND. Funny how I fixed the valves and was back at the next race (with the engine torn down) and proceeded to qualify number one at the next race with the fix valves. If you think I got special treatment then that is your opinion and you are entitled to that.

I'd be up for teardown with a new points system anytime if it meant I had a chance to compete for a national championship based on the performance of my car, which I've worked on for over 15 years to get it to this point.

Evan

Re: my opinion
 

Evan,are you losing your ****ing mind?I was commenting on the above post.What does that have to do with Indy?That's the furthest thing from my mind.Maybe I'm confused?

Re: my opinion
 

Yes Ed you are confused.....Even I know Evan took offense to a post Ed O'Brien made........and I don't even have a stocker anymore.....but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Last night......LOL

Re: my opinion
 

Evan,as Emily Latella said on Saturday Night live "never mind".I went back and read Ed's post.
Ed you're a bad doggie,bad doggie.I know Evan,and in my estimation I don't think the installation
of those valves was a concious act of cheating.He replaced them,as instructed by the
tech people and checked out clean at his next race.BTW I don't think it was Div.1
personel who made the call,though I may be wrong.Someone correct me if I am.
How about flagrant **** like passing the scales,wrong claims of year cars,wrong engine blocks,etc.That's where NHRA is failing us.
Evan again sorry for doubting your sanity.
And thanks Doc for ringing a bell in my old soft head.

Re: my opinion
 

Jeez Ed it's Christmastime..................................... ..............................

Re: my opinion
 

Let me see if I can wrap this up as I haven't looked here in almost 24 hours...I'll do my best!

Mark Faul said:
With the current points system it's fair for everyone! If any racer competes at 6 national events, they have the same number of races to claim as a "touring pro". Because ONCE AGAIN, you claim your best 3 out of 6. No races after your FIRST 6 count towards national points. Same with divisionals. Best 5 out of FIRST 8. So anyone that does well at their points claiming races could be national champion. There is no benefit in points to going to more than the 14 points claiming races. Touring pro or whoever.

Yes, fine. But in your scenario you, the traveler, are rewarded with a "bigger bucket" in which the top races are chosen. It really doesn't matter if you, the racer, or NHRA chooses the top points earning races; you'll benefit. Neither the racer or NHRA will pick anything but the best. Right?
As you have pointed out, the system is geared to favor those that can attend (6) national events and (8) divisional events.


Mike Carr said:
Jeff, I am guessing you are referring to the old "waiver" system, where racers had x-amount of races they could waive, pre-event and post-event? I'm not sure how many waivers a racer had back then (I think the current points structure has been in place since the early 1990's). I think a racer had two pre-event and two post-event waivers. Maybe three. Someone else will have to help me out here.

What we need here is somebody that can accurately explain the evolution of the NHRA Championships. As Mark Faul said, he didn't start class racing until 1996 and I didn't start until 1998. A lot can be learned by the history and I believe it will demonstrate how it has grown to favor or actually encourage attending as many events as possible.
At one point in time a racer received more points for attending intra- divisional events than out of divisional events. Why? The racer was encouraged to stay "local". I guess that was when NHRA was concerned about the Sportsman racer and new there was a line separating the Sportsman from the Pro.
At one time the Championship was decided when all divisional champions competed against each other at the World Finals (much like Jegs All-Stars). Originally held in Oklahoma (or Kansas?) as a "central" location then moved to California. Somewhere along the way it was determined that the TRAVELING DISTANCE of the World Finals was a HARDSHIP for the division champions. That thought has been lost and now NHRA encourages, no mandates, the Sportsman to travel through the current points system if a championship is a goal. Again, NHRA new there was a line separating the Sportsman from the Pro. Not today though.

442OLDS said:
What defines a "full-time professional drag racer" versus AMATEUR racer?

Who knows. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck! I understand from a bowler friend that if his average over a season is 195+, he is not allowed to participate at amateur events. Golfers that participate in amateur series once obtaining a 3 handicap or less are placed in the pro category (pretty sure that's the correct numbers as I'm not a golfer).
The absence of a full-time job other than drag racer, full sponsorship deals that pay the racer to attend races (note: not limited to winning races), IRS declarations...those would be strong indicators to me.

Evan Smith said:
My question is: should the national champions be simply the best bracket racers or the best overall racers, based on building and tuning your car as well? Award points for the top 32 qualified spots at national and divisional events and award points for rounds won during class eliminations and for records set. This also will entice racers to run hard and the AHFS system will be more effective.

I've said here more than once, points to #1 qualifier and record runs. Evan has expanded on this and he has my agreement.

Paul Merolla said:
Evan, that's the FIRST rule change discussed on this thread that made any sense to me. Don and Jeff's ramblings sound like recess in 2nd grade..."I can't win so change the game to suit me!!" How many times do they have to explain it? The best 3 of the FIRST 6. Anyone who can attend 6 nationals has the same playing field as the guy that attends all 24.

Paul, I'd bet I posted that before Evan but who cares. Like I said above, I've repeated this more than once on this site. Don and Jeff are not trying to change the rules because we can't win, Don & Jeff are supporting ideas that would be more favorable to the average Sportsman racer. Don't forget Paul, you can't attend AA of those national events without attending ALL of those divisional events if you want a championship. Anybody out there operating under the current points system ever win a championship without attending the maximum allowable events? I don't think so...

Under the current system, it would be foolish to chase a championship unless you have the commitment of time and money to attend all 14 races.
The old system, as I understand it, was more favorable to a true Sportsman racer. The new system favors the pro racer. So who "changed the rules"?

West Coast said:
The only disadvantage to the current points system would be were you live and how many races are close to you. So that solution would to be move.

Yea, move. That's the argument presented by IHRA racers as well. Sell your home on the west coast lately? Have enough left over for the move?
The old system as pointed out gave points for intra-divisional races. Now you get the same points if you live in California and race there or New Jersey. Yes, I call that a disadvantage.

Ed O'Brien said:
If they ran off records my bet is Bob Shaw 2010 world champ . Have a nice day Ed

And maybe he deserves it. I have a client that set 28 records one year and won his divisional. I say he deserved it. To the next comment by Ed to Evan Smith about "bogus" engines qualifying at #32 or better, all NHRA participants are subject to tear down. Even the last qualifier.

Toby Lang said:
Same thing with divisionals except it's your best 5 of 8. Bottom line: nobody gets to pick and choose which races they claim. Do you understand this point?

About the old system. I heard that Jim Waldo lost out on a championship one time because he didn't claim a 4th rounder thinking he could do better and didn't. If he would have claimed that race he would have been champ. This is just what somebody told me. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't you think the current system gives the person who doesn't travel across the country the same chance to win a championship as a Touring Pro Sportsman®?

1st paragraph. Yes I understand. As I said before, you or NHRA pick the top 5/8 divisional. Either way it will be the top 5/8 so it doesn't matter who does the picking.
Jim Waldo's issue - yea, he took a gamble and lost. He didn't have the opportunity to "stuff the ballot box" as can allowed today. Another analogy is today the racer that can attend the maximum number of races is in a "buy back" situation and Jim Waldo did not have that luxury. Again, this shows that the person who can attend the maximum allowable of 14 races has an advantage.
Last paragraph - I would hope by now you see my point that no, it requires full use of all allowable races to chase a championship. Like I said before, I don't think it has been done under the current system with anything less than 100% attendance.

Ed Fernandez said:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lee
How about this. Since NHRA has a limited quota on entries to national events, once the touring pro's have met their allowance on races claimed, they can not enter races if it bumps out a potential participant. If the quota is not met, then entry is open.
You can't be serious can you comrade Jeff

Not on that one. But I have heard this from more than one source so maybe it has some merit. Nothing pisses off a racer more than to not get into a race in your own backyard because your shy one point. And when 40 out of 60 in attendance get in from other states....oooh, they git a little miffed.

By the way, I just found out today Mexico manufactured AMC's (VAM - Vehicle American Motors) had a 302 CID 4bbl equipped straight six! You have any info on that? There's an intake on ebay right now, factory 4bbl. I asked around and found out about the 302 six. That's all I know about it but that would be worth looking into. Maybe a SS/GT engine for you? If I were into sixes I would look for some SAE papers for NHRA!

Ed O'Brien said:
I forgot Merry Xmas everybody !! Is that better ? Have a nice day


Yea, great post! That's the longest response I've ever made and I'll bet 1/2 or more gave up on the second paragraph. Kudos to those that stuck with me. Now I have work to do that pays the bills...good night all and I've enjoyed your opinions; hopefully as much as you've been entertained by mine...

Re: my opinion
 

Evan Smith, I think the point Ed OBrien is trying to make. You have wrong size valve`s, you go home, and race the next week, I`m sure they checked your head before you raced. James Kunkel raced in 2008 at Great Bend, Ks. points meet, in a borrowed red 66 Impala wagon, set record and was disqualified for runner volumes. He got a year off and couldn't race. Marv Ripes borrowed the same car and raced at 2008 Pacific Sportnationals, I wonder did he go to the race with head off and have it checked? Tom

Re: my opinion
 

Tom,

Since you are speaking for Ed, I will explain it. The difference is that valves can be legally cut, port volumes are not supposed to be manipulated. So if the volume is too big, either the spec is wrong, you have a magically oversized casting, or you have modified the head. Period. As we have seen, it is certainly possible to make a head pass with one inspector and then it fails with another.

My cylinder head guy installed valves from the manufacturer (1.85-inch) and the spec calls for 1.84. Neither the spec or the valves were checked. It was an honest mistake, albeit a huge and very stupid one. At Indy, I was checked by a D1 tech inspector who is a friend of mine and he did his job properly. It would have been very easy to look the other way and "let me off." I didn't expect him to do this and did not get any special treatment.

In the 15 years I've run Stock, I have been to the barn numerous times and have never had a problem—never in fuel check, or on the scale. Perhaps a clean record goes a long way.

I did not race at the race where I returned with the engine apart. Because of rain-shortened qualifying, I did not get the car back together in time to qualify. If Ed would like to protest me, I will gladly take the engine apart and collect his money. The car sat in the trailer and I raced a week later.

As for my idea on the points, it would be easy to make the points awarded for qualifying a very low count and you could limit the amount of races where you could earn them, just as it is with races claimed. Also, you could set a max on the times you could get points from setting a record, say twice a year or something like that. My idea is not that you can win a championship if you qualify first and lose first round wherever you go.

These points could enhance your points total from round wins. But make it so you can't win a championship based only on points earned from records, qualifying and Class wins. Maybe it would allow a hard-working racer who can't make a ton of races sneak into the top 10 in his/her division? It would be cool and performance really would matter.

Evan

Re: my opinion
 

Evan, You've vindicated yourself over and over again. You're OK with me and probably 99.9% of racers. Just let it roll off your shoulders.
For what it's worth, I don't think there was any malice intended in Ed Os. post. I think that he was just trying to make the point that if NHRA is going to make Stock and SS more "Performance" based Eliminators again they are going to have to come up with a better system for policing it than the "wink,wink, nudge,nudge" system that they have.

Re: my opinion
 

Thanks Billy, more tech would be a good think whether there are rule changes or not, but I doubt we'll get any until the economy rebounds and there can be more manpower in the pits.

I'm off to the PRI show floor.

Evan

Re: my opinion
 

[QUOTE=Ed OBrien; Did you ever think a 390 ford would be a player or a 383 ? Have a nice day[/QUOTE]

Ed O, I've always called that the "Ebb and Flow" of Stock racing. Rules change just the slightest bit and it affects one combo different than another. The 390 and 383 are players for different reasons. The 390 got a bigger carb and better heads. The 383 got defactored. Either way, they both became good. Just as a point of reference, (I'm NOT whining!) 10 years ago I could go to a race and pretty well know that I would be a top 10 qualifier. The last year I raced the car I couldn't make the top half of the field! The specs are the same, the HP factor is the same and the ETs are a bit faster. BUT nothing that changed in the rules benefitted my combo. So what do I do? Ask for HP back? I don't deserve HP back. I want to think that the AHFS will "fix" the combos that the rules benefit. Now all of the talk is about "whacking" the indexes. Go ahead and "whack" them. If the AHFS doesn't do it's job the indexes are a moot point. Maybe my little 6 cylinder should become some kind of a "standard" to base everybodys combo off of! (he said tongue in cheek!)

Re: my opinion
 

Damn! I was totally going to make decals and t-shirts until you registered it as a trademark. Partners? ;)

Instead of injecting my opinion here, let me just ask you: How many races should a racer have to attend to "earn" the National Championship?

Different sanction, but for what it's worth Bertozzi and I finished 1-2 in IHRA Stock a couple years ago with only 5/6 Nationals.

Well! "Work harder" of course! :rolleyes: (Isn't that what they always say?) Good thing they don't say it within earshot of you.... LOL

Re: my opinion
 

[QUOTE=Michael Beard;



Well! "Work harder" of course! :rolleyes: (Isn't that what they always say?) Good thing they don't say it within earshot of you.... LOL[/QUOTE]

Dey don't know me vewy well do dey?

Re: my opinion
 

Michael Beard said:
Instead of injecting my opinion here, let me just ask you: How many races should a racer have to attend to "earn" the National Championship?

Different sanction, but for what it's worth Bertozzi and I finished 1-2 in IHRA Stock a couple years ago with only 5/6 Nationals.

Good question. Don't know. But I do know I would want a system that gave maximum benefit to staying within your division. And I suppose I would be highly in favor of the old way (as I understand it). Win the divisional championship then run for the gold at the world finals.
It is not a waste of time and money to travel to races. Travel all you can handle. But just about everybody I know that races S/SS would never pursue a national championship under the current system; even if they were to win a divisional or two along with a national or two in any given year.
Taking the amount of time from work, much less family, to pursue this dream is daunting at any time, much less with the current economic times (and believe me, the economy ain't going to right itself anytime soon). However, myself and others I know, if we did well in our division, we would travel to any location in the USA for a chance at a national championship. That's one big trip and a lot of little trips that can lead to a championship as opposed to a LOT of BIG trips criss-crossing the country.
How different is this from the Jeg's Allstars series?

Re: my opinion
 

Jeff,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that to have a better chance at winning a championship you need to go to the maximum allowable races. I'm sure it was that way under the old waiver system also. Why don't you ask Al Corda how many events he had to go to back in the old days to win a championship? He lives by you, right? Or maybe Don could ask his good friend Al for you.

If somebody is seriously in the championship hunt they usually find a way to get to all the races allowed. I (and many others) think the system is just fine the way it is. I think the champion should be determined over a period of many races not just one.


-Toby

Re: my opinion
 

Jeff, what is your issue with "Pro Sportsmen? I don't get it. Is it jealousy or ego or what? Over the years I've had a couple of chances to win the World but I couldn't take them. Just too many other comittments. I got over it. I'll never forget one year in particular I was kissing close to closing up my business and taking a shot when a chance conversation with an old friend (Joe Scott 1980 SS World Champ) changed my mind. He told me,"Billy if you need the ego massage then go for it 'cause you're not going to be doing it for the money". With that being said I didn't close my business for two months and go on the road. I can live with it. Why can't you?

Re: my opinion
 

It's difficult to read emotion in typed words... take this post as inquisitive, not accusatory.

Tough when you have to make a decision that will make everybody happy, isn't it?

This is basically what IHRA has now with its Tournament of Champions. There are people who love the new system who hated the old system, and people who loved the old system and hate the new system. There's certainly been plenty of discussion about it.

Are you ready to declare the Allstars winner the National Champion? If you did so, would more or less people chase points, and would it get the people that do chase to attend more events? Really, that format isn't so different from the Bracket Finals, where you have to qualify at your home track, and then a single event determines the champions.

Just my opinion, but I don't think that it's *supposed* to be easy to win the World Championship. Is it really unreasonable to expect your Champ to attend 14 races? The shorter the season, the more luck involved. Would you rather not have any dropped events? While many will choose to max out their claims, they don't *have* to. As soon as you start eliminating dropped races, racers start losing their options, and if you "fix" that by reducing the number of races a racer can claim, then you probably hurt attendance at events. Catch 22. I think everyone would agree that National events put more of a time & travel strain on people -- would it be beneficial to reduce National claims to 3/5 instead of 3/6? ...and would it really make a difference?

I do agree that they should give the extra "little points" for In-Division claims, and not for Outs.

Short version: "What Toby said."

Re: my opinion
 

I have no ego involved in this "conversation". I will never be a world champion in S/SS because I do not have the desire. That is my prerogative just as it is your prerogative to quit work and take the family on the road. Since I have no desire, I am also not jealous. It seems really difficult for some people on this board to understand some people, like I, see a bigger picture than themselves. I've said it repeatedly here, if you want to go to all 24 races, go for it. Why would I care?
All I am saying is the rules, as written, not only encourage but demand attendance to all 14 points earning races if one wishes to pursue a national championship. As you said, it is called "Pro Sportsman"; which is it, "Pro" or Sportsman"?
It would seem this type of "Pro-Sportsman" racer could be defined as a "professional". As I demonstrated earlier, some "individual" sports (golf, bowling, maybe even fishing) have standards that separate the "sportsman" (or amateur), from the "professional" ranks. NHRA does not seem to separate the two. In fact, it is part of your language.
In fact, NHRA allows "professional" racers (think Pro-Stock multi-time national champion Jeg Caughlin and others) to compete against "Sportsman" racers. Does that practice seem equitable to you? Should Tiger Woods be allowed to compete on the same level playing grounds in the amateur tournaments? Kind of like shooting fish in a rain barrel in my opinion.

Re: my opinion
 

Encourage? Most definitely. That's the promoter's job!

What does Pro Stock have to do with Stock or Super Stock? They are different disciplines. This is like allowing Tiger Wood to compete in a croquet tournament.

I'm one that does look at the bigger picture, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the same one as you. What exactly are you defining as problems and solutions?

Re: my opinion
 

I see you're bringing up the pro versus amateur angle from other sports.

As far as I know, amateurs don't receive any prize money. Do you receive prize money when you win an NHRA event? Well, yes you do. Therefore, everybody that races in NHRA events is a pro.


-Toby

Re: my opinion
 

Not on that one. But I have heard this from more than one source so maybe it has some merit. Nothing pisses off a racer more than to not get into a race in your own backyard because your shy one point. And when 40 out of 60 in attendance get in from other states....oooh, they git a little miffed.

There you go again with the "communist manifesto".Where has it ever been stated that
home town racers should be allowed entry to any race?
You and Don are just disgrunted racers looking for handouts to make you more competitive.Brutal but factual.
Based on the frequent posts you make about our type of racing why do you continue to
pour massive doses of cash,as you sometimes remind us about,into this type of racing.
Maybe the show car circuit would suit you better.I've heard there's some real fierce infighting among that fraternity also.

Re: my opinion
 

So whats a "Sportsman". NHRA has a "Pro" category and a "Sportsman" category. You tell me, what's the difference?

Re: my opinion
 

The bold print would be a lie. The rest of your story is slanted to your view on Don and I. I can tell you that you are wrong. But go with it if it makes you happy.