Some random thoughts

[Mike Carr]

After reading some of the stuff over the past week, I've felt compelled to add my views on a few topics.

1.) Class Winner "bump-ins". We have never been "bump-ins". We have always been IN. It were the fastest cars of those that DID NOT win class that became the field fillers. Even today, read under the payouts for a National Event, under Stock and Super Stock. From the souvenir edition of this years Denver event (for both Stock and Super Stock):

"Maximum-128 cars- (Class Winners + qualifiers)-payout starts 3rd round." (Yes, I know that most races accept far less than 128 entries. Just using this as a point).

And so, with a quick vote, a fifty-four year old rule is out the window. I still do not know why, as no one has come on here to post exactly why (and if they did, I apologize for missing it). I am guessing that a few racers who were DNQ's at Indy complained because they felt they were "bumped". It has been voiced on here it was because we were either slow, a single-car entrant, or both. Well, I can not speak for others, but I will use myself for an example. In 2002, my first Indy, I was a bye-run for HF/SA. My best run was a 17.933 on an 18.60 Index. The same car in March of '02 at Delmar, Delaware, in killer air ran a 17.30 (-1.30), and set the National Record with owner Billy Nees driving. With myself driving at the LODRS race in Delmar in June, I ran 17.583 (-1.017) in pretty decent air. Having the lack of barometer, a high vapor pressure in DA slows that car that much. However, either of the Delmar runs would have placed me easily in the program (#3 or #53) at Indy. So, as far as being a "turd", the car was far from it. It just does not run well in poor air. I'm willing to bet other "slow" cars are affected similarly.

Now, as far as the part in regards to:

2.) Class bye-runs. Billy Nees owns both of the cars I have driven to three bye-runs at Indy. There were other cars in my classes, but due to various circumstances, I was the only one to show. To fault a racer for being the only one in his/her class is far from fair. When I first drove Billy's car, there were quite a few HF/SA's, but since I was the only one that could/would go to Indy (one no-show was even from Indiana), I should be penalized? I guess I should have asked Billy to build me/put me in a fill-in-the-blank/Stock Automatic class, one with 10-12 or more cars, so I could have "earned" my class win. Since, apparently, by:
- travelling around to earn the required grade points to go
- paying my entry fee
- making the tow to race
- making my single run, running under my Class Index (or five-tenths under in years after)
- being declared legal at fuel check, scales, teardown, etc

By doing all that, I didn't "earn" my spot on the ladder. Shame on me, and other racers like me.

It shouldn't matter how few or how many cars are in your class. You met all the requirements, showed up, won class. You should be in the big show.


3.) Charley Downing, you wrote something to the effect that slow FWD cars didn't belong in Stock Eliminator. Well, what if NHRA decided that, for 2009, that "station wagons are slow, ugly, big lumbering things that we don't feel belong in Stock, it's not what fans want to see". Wouldn't you get a little upset? So please don't talk trash about the cars that some of us race.

And, for the record, some of us choose to race the cars we do. Either a car we like, something we can afford, an "oddball" combination that is a challenge to get to run, whatever the case may be. I personally do not like the "cookie cutter" cars around. In a few years (or sooner), the great majority of Stock Eliminator cars will be AA-A-B-C/S(A) big block Camaros and late-model FI cars. Yawn. I like a little more variety than that. The great variety of classes in Stock allow us to choose what we run, and why. Car, truck, wagon, FWD, big or small block, carburetor or fuel injected, Ford, Mopar, GM or AMC, and each has a challange or reason as to why we do it. "My _____ can outrun/beat your _____, or I can outdrive you in the eliminator with my little old ____". To take one particular group of cars and/or racers and say to them "I don't want you/your cars in my class because I don't like them" is narrow-mindedness at best, and total asininity at worst.

Another thing. It was brought up that only one person has ever won a National event in a FWD (Mark Yacavone at E-town in the 1980's). And someone made a post about "them being lucky if they go more than a round or two". Well hell, then, since we all stink so bad, why wouldn't you WANT to run us? Who wouldn't want a duck for an opponent? I personally enjoy the challenge of driving one. Much harder than driving a higher classed RWD car. So many things can hurt us more than faster cars in regards to dialing them. It's been cool, and a challenge, to be the underdog to much faster, and more expensive cars and put them on the trailer and get down to the late rounds a few times. Oh wait, maybe that's it. Some may have been "embarrassed" to lose to a 14-17 second car that "do not belong in Stock Eliminator".


4.) A lot of racers would have been out in the cold in the old days. Back then, it was Class Winner ONLY in the eliminator. And ALL Class Winners were required to tear-down, no matter how quick or slow they were, or how many were in their Class. Maybe this would not be such a bad deal nowadays. Probably would cut down on the illegal stuff going on. Especially with a teardown by Marty, Farmer and company, if they were still around. Oh, and before someone jumps on me and calling me "some old fart living in the past", I'd like to point out that I'm only 27. But, hearing stories of the old days makes me wish that I DID race back in the good old days. You remember, back when your local track had class and eliminator every week. Back when the sanctioning bodies didn't make knee-jerk rule changes, and enforced the rules that they did put forth. Back when a class win was worth something financially. Back when we had real racing in Stock and Super Stock (and Comp and Modified).

The preceding were opinions of my own. They may or may not reflect or agree with others. Feel free to send fan and hate mail to dragrace@ccia.com

B.D.

[Jim Wahl]

Thank you Mike. Excellent post. I hope the guys who spent all their time slamming me take the time to read and fully understand what Mike is saying. I'm so tired, so very tired. Jim

[Dennis P Chapman]

Great post Mike you hit right on the head.

[fredjohnston]

The three of you haven't raced enough in the last several years to even have a voice in beating this dead horse. Move on guys, it's only going to impact one race a year and I don't see your names on the Indy entry list. Go fast or go home!

[Bill Belden]

So Fred, what car and class do you run, can't seem to find you on any list.

[art leong]

Great post Mike

Mr johnston how far under can you go? Would you care to match race a "slow POS fwd" car. Index to index with no breakout for some real bucks? How many times have you qualified number one?
The reason I'm not going to Indy is it took a lot longer than expected to get my car running and I don't have the credits tp get in. I'm ruunning an oddball car so I can't go to a cookie cutter builder to do my car.
You will see me at Indy next year. And I'll be traveling a lot. So save your bucks up and give it a try?

[Larry Hill]

So who is Fred Johnson? Just went to NHRA home page and typed in his name. Nothing showed up. So if you don't race your opinion doesn't count at all in my opinion. (But of course, that's just my opinion!)

Sent an email last night to all at NHRA that we thought might have a say-so in getting things changed and asked if the 128 quickest qualifiers could be re-considered. Haven't heard back from anyone yet.

Patsy ( I know I don't race myself, but I am very involved with racing and Larry's name did show up on the NHRA page!)

[Jeff Lee]

I can guarantee Mr. Fred that my old Shelby Z A/FS could bump him (that's if he even does race Stock) out of any event. And if he thinks building a #1 qualifying FWD car is easy, have at it. I melted 3 heads and 3 sets of pistons figuring it out.

[Sean Haning]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

I can guarantee Mr. Fred that my old Shelby Z A/FS could bump him (that's if he even does race Stock) out of any event. And if he thinks building a #1 qualifying FWD car is easy, have at it. I melted 3 heads and 3 sets of pistons figuring it out.

Was your car white? I seem to remember reading about it in a magazine back in the late 80's early 90's. That was probably my first bit of info that these cars were allowed to compete.

[Dwight Southerland]

Excellent post, Mike. You addressed the "rightness" rationale of the way Indy was run originally. kudos!!

Another reality that most people would not be aware of is part of the point you made about all the class winners being torn down. Only the winner or runner-up in class earned a spot in the eliminator. The winner had to be torn down. If he failed, the runner-up was then torn down. If neither were found legal, then no one from that class was in the eliminator. This was a way to keep pressure on racers to be legal. The other factor in that equation was that Indy had the biggest payout of any race of the season by a lot. Now, that is not the case, especially since class win payout has dwindled. I won $1000+ for class wins in the 1970s, which would be lots more than that in today's dollars, so there was real incentive to go to Indy to win class legitimately. All of those factors made up an atmosphere that gave glory to Indy class wins. So many of the changes that have been made to "enhance" the race experience (including qualifiers in the eliminator race, restrictions on the definition of a class win, added events, limited tear downs, etc.) have actually eroded class racing as a result. It has been a gradual change, like the frog in the pot of water on a stove. Leadership has missed the point all along.

There is a lot of call for the 128 low qualifiers as an equitable answer. That has a performance element attached to it, it seems, so many would agree that is the "right" way. However, since qualifying is based upon a performance against a mostly arbitrary standard, the performances are more politically defined than actual. At least a class winner has won a contest to qualify. If no one chooses to participate in a given class, it is not the competitor's responsibility to bear; it is the organization that hosts the contest who should bear that responsibility. If the PGA was controlled by a rule set that allowed handicap or scratch golfers to participate in their tournaments, would it then make sense to disqualify a participant who won the tournament playing off his handicap because his score was too low?? No. But that is analgous to what is happening now. Participation in the March Madness NCAA basketball tournament is not determined by who has the best stats; it is about winning games. If they prevent class winners from racing in a class eliminator, it makes more sense to me to qualify purely based on raw ET and run a bracket race rather than claim classes.

Where is the USCN when you want it???