Some random thoughts

[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.

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by Sean Haning

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.

Started racing in Stock with this car in 1994. Set the BF/S record @ 14.13 on a tired engine and AF/S record @ 13.26 on a fresh engine. First 13 second FWD stocker and first over 100 MPH. A/C still functioning. That's because I still drove it on the street. Mustangs hated it!

Dwight,
Well written (as always)!

[Ed Carpenter]

Jeff where is the AMX?

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by deuces wild

Jeff where is the AMX?

Same old story, locked up in chassis prison. They are in process of "remodeling" the shop (which is a good thing) and moving all of the machine shop over to where my car is. And of course the car is in pieces. I'm being promised September-October. Doesn't matter right now to me...real estate is sooooooo slow I wouldn't race right now if I could. 110% goal is debut at first D7 race in 09 with any issues ironed out.

[Sean Haning]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

Started racing in Stock with this car in 1994. Set the BF/S record @ 14.13 on a tired engine and AF/S record @ 13.26 on a fresh engine. First 13 second FWD stocker and first over 100 MPH. A/C still functioning. That's because I still drove it on the street. Mustangs hated it!

Dwight,
Well written (as always)!

LOVE IT!!! I've been told to get a utility trailer and drive the Shadow to the div. meets, bolt on the slicks, have fun, swap back out and "hopefully" drive home.

I know back when you did it, there wasn't near the knowledge or support we have now. That 13 was a nice feat back then.

[TOM KASCH]

http://public.fotki.com/tk3300/2000_super_stock_/
starts on page 4
I of corse don't like this new fastest rule, but we are out of the fight.
It doesn't look good to me, as I still think NHRA will move stk into ss within 2 yrs...

[Ed Wright]

Originally Posted by TOM KASCH

http://public.fotki.com/tk3300/2000_super_stock_/
starts on page 4
I of corse don't like this new fastest rule, but we are out of the fight.
It doesn't look good to me, as I still think NHRA will move stk into ss within 2 yrs...

Happend before. Had to change my car over to Super Stock then. Other than the pistons, we were more stock than what guys are running now. Stock lift, duration and valve spring specs. Put light pistons in a present day Stocker and you would have a very good Super Stocker in the '70s. A couple of years later NHRA came out with Pure Stock, I was roundy-round racing then so I don't know how long that lasted before Stock came along again. Would not suprise me at all to see it happen again.

[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???