Sportsman Racers Council?

[Kent Hanley]

As Jeff and Mike have indicated the SRAC learned of this change at the same time everyone else did.


From what I learned today the new format for class racing was not a NHRA idea but a plan developed by the Sponsor Association to help reduce their expenses and add some excitement to Class racing. There were a lot of reasons for the change and the Sponsor Association have been trying to figure this out for a couple years. As you may all ready know the money put up for Class is “voluntary” and not part of their National event sponsorship commitment with NHRA?

The reasons I heard for their change in format are:

1. They are not getting the benefit, sales and/or return on investment for all the money they are investing in class contingency
2. There are so many classes and a large portion of the money is going to single competitor classes ( I think Indy had around 50 single competitor classes between stock and super stock)
3. Racers are falsifying the contingency forms and claiming products they don’t have.
4. Some sponsors are frustrated that they are paying some racers that bought a part or product from them 10 years ago and they have not sold them anything else since then.
5. They were also trying to come up with a new exciting twist to class racing with the National Class Champions who could win a lot at $500 per product. They also hope to promote the winners for added press and hopefully sales.
6. and the obvious, Economic conditions


This is all I know. I think I speak for all of us we very much appreciate any and all sponsors that supports our racing addiction especially those that voluntarily support class racing. I have only won class once in about 10 years so I may not have as much to loose or gain as others on this site but I would hope the sponsors will be open for suggestions and feedback on how this could be adjusted so it would be a win win for everyone.

It’s pretty obvious we need to support the sponsors that support us.

Kent Hanley
SRAC D1

[Bernie Cunningham]

Kent, your post belongs in the above Sticky, well said !!!

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Kent Hanley

As Jeff and Mike have indicated the SRAC learned of this change at the same time everyone else did.


From what I learned today the new format for class racing was not a NHRA idea but a plan developed by the Sponsor Association to help reduce their expenses and add some excitement to Class racing. There were a lot of reasons for the change and the Sponsor Association have been trying to figure this out for a couple years. As you may all ready know the money put up for Class is “voluntary” and not part of their National event sponsorship commitment with NHRA?

The reasons I heard for their change in format are:

1. They are not getting the benefit, sales and/or return on investment for all the money they are investing in class contingency
2. There are so many classes and a large portion of the money is going to single competitor classes ( I think Indy had around 50 single competitor classes between stock and super stock)
3. Racers are falsifying the contingency forms and claiming products they don’t have.
4. Some sponsors are frustrated that they are paying some racers that bought a part or product from them 10 years ago and they have not sold them anything else since then.
5. They were also trying to come up with a new exciting twist to class racing with the National Class Champions who could win a lot at $500 per product. They also hope to promote the winners for added press and hopefully sales.
6. and the obvious, Economic conditions


This is all I know. I think I speak for all of us we very much appreciate any and all sponsors that supports our racing addiction especially those that voluntarily support class racing. I have only won class once in about 10 years so I may not have as much to loose or gain as others on this site but I would hope the sponsors will be open for suggestions and feedback on how this could be adjusted so it would be a win win for everyone.

It’s pretty obvious we need to support the sponsors that support us.

Kent Hanley
SRAC D1

Hi everybody,remember me?Just a few comments.

I agree with #1 and #6
#2-Not the racers fault.Let them pay 1/4 the amount for singles,after all we are advertising for them by having the decals.Sort of like a moving billboard.
#3-I've been checked visually on and off for my class wins.On my win in 2006 Iwas visually checked on all visible parts.If someone lies then shame on them.
#4-That speaks well for the quality of their parts.They should emphasize that in their advertising.
#5-Not exciting if you have to run 4 guys or more in other classes.
As far as Wallys,we had to jump through a .5 hoop to get one.Then they killed .3 and eliminated that rule.Reinstate the .5 rule to maintain an element of so called performance.
Also we all will be paying $305 for the honor of running a national.I think that would help to cover the cost of them.And go back to awarding them for actual racing purposes.Give out plaques for the other non performance related mumbo jumbo.

A kinder and gentler
Ed F.

[SS Engine Guy]

Originally Posted by Kent Hanley

4. Some sponsors are frustrated that they are paying some racers that bought a part or product from them 10 years ago and they have not sold them anything else since then.
Kent Hanley
SRAC D1

And I bet I could tell you which sponsors would use that reason.

Could it be that some only have one part that is actually worth using?

Like I said in a previous post: I use NO parts that have a time limitation on them unless it has an expiration date.

This isn't about the sponsors, its about the money. The upfront fees. They didn't like it in a good economy and they won't put up with it in a bad economy and I don't blame them. All we are hearing is what somebody "told us". Well, I talk to parts manufacturers every day and my customers will still be getting paid for class, whether it be a single or 50 cars.

By the way, what part of the membership got to set in on this meeting of the "Sponsor Association"? I have actually never heard of such a group.