Quote:
Originally Posted by dwydendorf
I never said that you had to build a new car to compete in Stock, I said that you may have to build a new car to be the fastest A or AA stock. Keep in mind that NHRA makes decisions based on what is best for their organization and not what may be the best for you as a racer. If that is corrupt or a good business decision is for you to decide. I am only presenting a different point of view. I have been on your side of a similar situation but I have learned to look at the situation differently. After seeing how fast the new cars are it makes me wonder if I should sell my old engine pieces and start on a new engine combo but its just a bracket race once eliminations start and very seldom do I have a heads up run so I don't get worked up over it. I have never been happy with some of the decision NHRA makes but I can't control it so I try not to let it get to me.
|
Well, the factors and the AHFS are supposed to make sure that you do not have to buy or build a new car. And while you might not see too many heads up races in regular eliminations, it is not that uncommon in Stock, especially for the faster classes. I think Fletcher had at least FOUR heads up races in a row last week.
Now, with all of these new combinations, it isn't "just" the A and AA cars, it'll go way down into the middle of the pack, as far as the G cars, maybe lower. The economy is in the tank, and it's okay to make $50K cars obsolete? No, it is not, and it would not be even if the economy was not in the tank. It is completely absurd, and unacceptable.
And we should have at least some control over what NHRA does. NHRA operates as a non profit organization that is supposed to be run by/for its members, according to the charter. So the members should have some control over what happens but they do not. Honestly, NHRA should be forced to relinquish their non profit status and pay massive taxes like the rest of the for profit corporations if they are going to run roughshod over their members.