Heard in the Stands at the Indy

[SSGT Mustang]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kempton

That's taking the conspiracy theories to the extreme in my opinion.

It may not be so far-fetched. The jealousy and pettiness of some people never ceases to amaze me. We see some of it even here. The decision to bounce him (because, in part, he drives a Honda) could have been made by an individual or those above him, all in the name of safety. In reality, however, safety and rules-enforcement doesn't appear to be the motivation. Seems more like...pettiness (to me, at least).

Just my .02.

[SC321X]

You should have given them a tech card. They would have to write why they failed you on the tech card. When you fixed those listed items they would have to pass you. You gave them too many chances to pick you apart. It seems to me our cars have passed tech several times at points races, it shouldn't be a problem to pass tech at a national event. Sorry for your bad experience and hope it goes better in the future. Just another dumb Racer.

[Jeff Kempton]

Originally Posted by 270DART

With Skillman’s Ford being on of the big 3 manufactures my assertion holds a bit of water. Truth be told Jeff, they led this racer to believe if he followed their protocols he could race. He bent over backwards and did exactly what was required, If not an out and out conspiracy (as you stated being extreme) what then prejudiced the sanctioning body against this racer?

The #1 car in Stock was Summers not Skillman. A 35 year old Ford Mustang II qualifying #1 at a Chevy sponsored event. Embarassing enough to the sponsor that it had to be tossed out? It doesn't appear that way.

Carey has indicated that he wishes to take this formally up the NHRA ladder in search of answers, in a logical and factual way. I think that is the right approach, and may give him some closure on the incident and encourage him to continue racing with NHRA. He is definitely owed an explanation and hopefully an apology too. At the least the rules should be updated to keep this from happening again.

Perhaps this was an individual inspector with a grudge that created this mess, or perhaps it even came from a higher ranked official. But the implication that there is a formal agenda to keep any high performing non-Chevys out of a Chevy sponsored race (or Mopar race, etc.) is pretty extreme. And to suggest that the entire sanctioning body is in collusion to stack the odds to make that happen is something that I just don't buy. If you truly think that the entire organization is so deeply corrupt why do you even race?

Just my opinion; yours may be (likely is) different. You're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine.

More importantly, I really hope that Carey gets the needed answers. I for one want to enjoy the sight of that S2000 racing in the future.

[270DART]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kempton

The #1 car in Stock was Summers not Skillman. A 35 year old Ford Mustang II qualifying #1 at a Chevy sponsored event. Embarassing enough to the sponsor that it had to be tossed out? It doesn't appear that way.

Carey has indicated that he wishes to take this formally up the NHRA ladder in search of answers, in a logical and factual way. I think that is the right approach, and may give him some closure on the incident and encourage him to remain in Super Stock. He is definitely owed an explanation and hopefully an apology too. At the least the rules should be updated to keep this from happening again.

Perhaps this was an individual inspector with a grudge that created this mess, or perhaps it even came from a higher ranked official. But the implication that there is a formal agenda to keep any high performing non-Chevys out of a Chevy sponsored race (or Mopar race, etc.) is pretty extreme. And to suggest that the entire sanctioning body is in collusion to stack the odds to make that happen is something that I just don't buy. If you truly think that the entire organization is so deeply corrupt why do you even race?

Just my opinion; yours may be (likely is) different. You're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine.

More importantly, I really hope that Carey gets the needed answers. I for one want to enjoy the sight of that S2000 racing in future SS fields.

Good points Jeff. I used Skillman as an example because the Honda would have been in SS. I’m passionate about this because I saw the same thing happen to Ohio George when he ran his turbo Mustang around 67. A number of the hoops Cary has to jump through now were what George experienced back then; much for the same reasons I spoke of earlier. I guess I was responding to a pattern I saw. Advocacy for this racer is paramount and it certainly doesn't seem to be coming from said representative of the sanctioning body.

[Mike Pearson]

I don't think there was a conspiracy at all. The problem was he could not get the bell housing and the mid plate to conform to the rules as it is written. According to what is posted here the max space around the crank hub is 1 inch. He admits that his mid plate is cut to the outside dimension of the flywheel. Not all combinations can be run in specific classes with out major modifications. I think the car is really cool but really belongs in comp eliminator. Not really a super stock car in my opinion. I do wish him luck in getting a resolution to the issue. The bellhousing manufacturer should do the engineering and submit the fix to NHRA for approval.

[rognelson777]

carey is trying to race the car in Comp Eliminator now not super carey, you should speak with Browell on the chain of command at NHRA and who you should approach first. Browell has a bonus program in division 3 and alsois a big supporter of comp

[Stewart Way]

Carey
Looking at the picture you posted of the Funny Car, 2 things of note. There is a different rule for the space between the OD of the crank flange and the ID of the hole in the plate for a FC. FC has a limit of 7" max on the hole size, not the 1" difference. Can't tell what the ID is on the one in the photo. Second. if you look at the block plate/firewall it has a recessed area that the flywheel sits in that I think NHRA will likely tell you will be the solution to your problem. Think that piece has to be made by the same manuf as the shield. Just my thoughts and doesn't change the fact that you got hosed.
Like most, I can appreciate the effort you have put in and hope you stick with it. As an old tech man, I can tell you one of the hardest things was telling someone that just because you passed last week doesn't mean you did this week. Doesn't sound like telling you was all that hard for the official you ran into. Just wondering, if you has turned in a tech card, what would you have done about dates on the shield and clutch?

[boostedf22c]

Originally Posted by SC321X

You should have given them a tech card. They would have to write why they failed you on the tech card. When you fixed those listed items they would have to pass you. You gave them too many chances to pick you apart. It seems to me our cars have passed tech several times at points races, it shouldn't be a problem to pass tech at a national event. Sorry for your bad experience and hope it goes better in the future. Just another dumb Racer.

You are probably right. However, I told the tech guys multiple times that I wasn't ready for tech and the one tech guy that actually spoke with me said "no problem". So I wasn't going to hand them my tech card until I was ready. Actually I still have my tech card, stapled to all my paperwork, that is completely blank. Once I made right the 3 things they told me too, being the clutch can, clutch and flywheel spec and certification, I was ready to actually have my car tech'd, as these are the 3 things they said I needed to right so I could race. Which was thursday morning, Q1 day. They still never asked for the tech card, just that they thought about it overnight, and that they found something in the rulebook that my car didn't meet. One of the tech guys, not the head one, did apologize to me, and told me it could of been handled better, but that didn't mean much to me at the time. Looking back, that particular tech guy, at least talked with me, and acknowledged that they didn't handle this properly. That means something to me know. However, the head tech guy, that clearly made this decision, never once said a word to me. Obviously, as the rule is written, my adapter plate didn't meet their rule. Now, I just want to talk with NHRA about why we did the adapter plate the way we did it, and why it'll be extremely difficult and potentially dangerous to make it in the manner that the rulebook is written.

Originally Posted by Mike Pearson

According to what is posted here the max space around the crank hub is 1 inch. He admits that his mid plate is cut to the outside dimension of the flywheel. Not all combinations can be run in specific classes with out major modifications. I think the car is really cool but really belongs in comp eliminator. Not really a super stock car in my opinion. I do wish him luck in getting a resolution to the issue. The bellhousing manufacturer should do the engineering and submit the fix to NHRA for approval.

The hole around the crankshaft isn't cut to the outside dimension of the flywheel. Just enough to allow the radius on the back of the flywheel to meet the crankshaft. I would say the over diameter of the hole, if I had to guess, would be about 8" in diameter.

I was entering the car in comp eliminator at this race. We made some changes that would bump us out of Super Stock.

Originally Posted by Stewart Way

Carey
Looking at the picture you posted of the Funny Car, 2 things of note. There is a different rule for the space between the OD of the crank flange and the ID of the hole in the plate for a FC. FC has a limit of 7" max on the hole size, not the 1" difference. Can't tell what the ID is on the one in the photo. Second. if you look at the block plate/firewall it has a recessed area that the flywheel sits in that I think NHRA will likely tell you will be the solution to your problem. Think that piece has to be made by the same manuf as the shield. Just my thoughts and doesn't change the fact that you got hosed.
Like most, I can appreciate the effort you have put in and hope you stick with it. As an old tech man, I can tell you one of the hardest things was telling someone that just because you passed last week doesn't mean you did this week. Doesn't sound like telling you was all that hard for the official you ran into. Just wondering, if you has turned in a tech card, what would you have done about dates on the shield and clutch?

Interesting that funny car has a different ruling on that. So that at least lets me know that they are willing to make revisions to certain rules. My adapter plate does have a recessed area where the flywheel sits. It has too because of where the crank flange is in relation to the block flange. This is a 1/2" adaptor plate, and still has .400" of material where it is recessed for the flywheel. As far as the can, clutch, flywheel, I made that right on wednesday and it was all legal and ready to go.

I'm going to wait to approach NHRA and let the Indy buzz settle down, and for me to calm down even more. I want to approach this without emotion playing any role. And I'm still pretty bitter.

[Mike Pearson]

The hole around the crankshaft isn't cut to the outside dimension of the flywheel. Just enough to allow the radius on the back of the flywheel to meet the crankshaft. I would say the over diameter of the hole, if I had to guess, would be about 8" in diameter.

I was entering the car in comp eliminator at this race. We made some changes that would bump us out of Super Stock.

Carey,
Sorry I misread your description of the hole in the mid plate. I do wish you all of the luck in the world to get this issue resolved and good luck with your car in comp eliminator. I know the feeling when you get bounced for a tech issue. Happened to me at the Gators one year. No Fun. You just have to put it behind you and move on. You will get it!!

[art leong]

Cary I have an idea for a fairly cheap fix to your problem. Atatch a round plate about 7 inches in diameter and very thin (.030 or so) to the crankshaft hub. This becomes part of the crank. so the flange is now 7 inches. So your 8 inch hole is rule book legal.
The 4 cylinder Chryslers use something like that (but the same size as the crank flange) that ataches to the outside of the flex plate to help prevent harmonics from shaking the flexplate bolts loose.
I know how you feel I was furious that they made a big deal about the louvers in my fiberglass fenders. They allowed me to run that race but sent letters about me to all division tech directors so they would be on the lookout for me.
I took off my fiberglass fenders replaced them with metal fenders that were 8 pounds lighter. And painted the whole nose with a rattle can. Telling me to change them would have been fine but the letters to all division offices was over the top.